Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31482194›Full record

SynthesisSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2019

Ethnic inequalities in the incidence of diagnosis of severe mental illness in England: a systematic review and new meta-analyses for non-affective and affective psychoses.

Kristoffer Halvorsrud, James Nazroo, Michaela Otis, Eva Brown Hajdukova, Kamaldeep Bhui

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristoffer HalvorsrudCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
James NazrooSociology, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Humanities, Bridgeford Street, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Michaela OtisCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Eva Brown HajdukovaCentre for Research in Public Health & Community Care (CRIPACC), University of Hertfordshire, Health Research Building, College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK.
Kamaldeep BhuiCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. k.s.bhui@qmul.ac.uk.
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough excess risks particularly for a diagnosis of schizophrenia have been identified for ethnic minority people in England and other contexts, we sought to identify and synthesise up-to-date evidence (2018) for affective in addition to non-affective psychoses by specific ethnic groups in England.

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in diagnosed incidence of psychoses in England, searching nine databases for reviews (citing relevant studies up to 2009) and an updated search in three databases for studies between 2010 and 2018. Studies from both searches were combined in meta-analyses allowing coverage of more specific ethnic groups than previously.

resultsWe included 28 primary studies. Relative to the majority population, significantly higher risks of diagnosed schizophrenia were found in Black African (Relative risk, RR 5.72, 95% CI 3.87-8.46, n = 9); Black Caribbean (RR 5.20, 95% CI 4.33-6.24, n = 21); South Asian (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.63-3.16, n = 14); White Other (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.59-3.14, n = 9); and Mixed Ethnicity people (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.32-3.80, n = 4). Significantly higher risks for diagnosed affective psychoses were also revealed: Black African (RR 4.07, 95% CI 2.27-7.28, n = 5); Black Caribbean (RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.78-4.74, n = 16); South Asian (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, n = 8); White Other (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32-1.83, n = 5); Mixed Ethnicity (RR 6.16, 95% CI 3.99-9.52, n = 4).

conclusionsThe risk for a diagnosis of non-affective and affective psychoses is particularly elevated for Black ethnic groups, but is higher for all ethnic minority groups including those previously not assessed through meta-analyses (White Other, Mixed Ethnicity). This calls for further research on broader disadvantages affecting ethnic minority people.

Indexed as

Affective Disorders, PsychoticAsian PeopleBlack PeopleEnglandEthnicityFemaleHealth Status DisparitiesHumansIncidenceMaleMinority GroupsPsychotic DisordersSchizophreniaWhite PeopleAffective psychosesEthnicityIncidenceMeta-analysisSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID31482194
OpenAlexW2971503771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.