Ethnicity and pathways to care during first episode psychosis: the role of cultural illness attributions

BMC Psychiatry

Table 3 Ethnic variations in proportional and dichotomous service encounters during FEP

Service encounters	Total	White	Black	Asian	P value	Odds ratio (95 % CI)^c
Mental health services	40.73 %	40.90 %	41.95 %	39.56 %	0.831^a	N/A	N/A
Emergency services/general	19.99 %	22.61 %	19.17 %	17.93 %	0.465^b	White vs. Asian	0.38 (0.14, 1.00)^d
Practitioner						White vs. Black	1.56 (0.64, 3.81)
						Asian vs. Black	4.13 (1.50, 11.40)
Welfare services	3.64 %	3.16 %	5.38 %	2.74 %	0.257^b	White vs. Asian	0.71 (0.21, 2.45)
						White vs. Black	1.88 (0.62, 5.68)
						Asian vs. Black	2.63 (0.79, 8.75)
Faith based services	3.51 %	0 %	3.27 %	7.39 %	<0.001 ^b	White vs. Asian	34.83 (4.39, 279.46) ^e
						White vs. Black	13.04 (1.54, 110.07)
						Asian vs. Black	0.37 (0.14, 1.01)
Criminal justice	6.34 %	4.46 %	8.36 %	6.66 %	0.121^b	White vs. Asian	1.49 (0.59, 3.79)
						White vs. Black	2.60 (1.01, 6.74)
						Asian vs. Black	1.74 (0.69, 4.38)
Compulsory detention	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	White vs. Asian	1.52 (0.58, 3.95)
						White vs. Black	4.67 (1.77, 12.32)
						Asian vs. Black	3.08 (1.21, 7.83)

Columns 2 to 5 represent the proportion of total FEP encounters for each ethnicity (columns do not equal 100 % as not all encounters [e.g., EI] are reported here); Column 8 represents at least one service encounter for each type of service; CI Confidence Interval, N/A data not available/applicable; ^aBased on ANOVA test; ^bBased on Kruskall-Wallis test; ^cLogistic regression with at least one encounter as the outcome; ^dAt least one emergency service encounter (excluding GP contact); ^eA value of 1 was added to each cell to facilitate logistic regression as there were no contacts for White patients
Bold typeface indicates significant Odds ratio

ISSN: 1471-244X