ABSTRACT
Independent mental health advocacy was introduced in England to protect and promote the rights of people detained under mental health legislation. However, shortcomings in access and delivery to racialised people, raising concerns about equity, were identified by a review of the Mental Health Act. The development of culturally appropriate advocacy was recommended. While the term culturally appropriate may be taken for granted it is poorly defined and limited efforts have conceptualized it in relation to advocacy. Ideally, advocacy operates as a liberatory practice to challenge epistemic injustice, which people experiencing poor mental health are at acute risk of. This is amplified for people from racialised communities through systemic racism. This paper argues that advocacy and culturally appropriate practices are especially relevant to racialised people. It clarifies the importance of culture, race and racism to the role of advocacy, and understanding advocacy through the conceptual lens of epistemic injustice. A central aim of the paper is to draw on and appraise cultural competency models to develop a conceptual framing of cultural appropriate advocacy to promote epistemic justice.
ABSTRACT
The Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) is an Organisational Competence Framework (OCF), recommended by the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act as a means to improve mental health access, experience and outcomes for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly Black people. This is a practical framework that should be co-produced with and tailored to the needs of service users, based on quality improvement and place-based approaches. We aim to use the PCREF to address the longstanding epistemic justices experienced by people with mental health problems, particularly those from minoritised ethnic groups. We will outline the work that led to the proposal, the research on racial inequalities in mental health in the UK, and how the PCREF will build on previous interventions to address these. By taking these into account, the PCREF should support a high minimum standard of mental health care for all.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A range of evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services is emerging. Levels of engagement with peer support vary with limited studies showing few individual participant characteristics predicting engagement. Implementation factors that might predict engagement have not been considered. METHODS: Data were analysed from the intervention arm of the ENRICH trial of one-to-one peer support for discharge from acute psychiatric inpatient care. Two outcomes were considered: (1) a measure of 'engaged with peer worker'; (2) number of face-to-face contacts with peer worker post-discharge. Two sets of independent variables were analysed against each outcome: (1) pre-randomisation participant characteristics; (2) implementation factors measured pre-discharge. Analyses used logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models according to outcome structure. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 265 participants randomised to peer support who had a known peer worker. Non-heterosexual participants had increased odds of engaging with peer support compared to heterosexual participants, OR = 4.38 (95% CI: 1.13, 16.9, p = .032). Longer duration of first contact with peer worker (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.04, p < .001) and more relationship building activities in the first contact (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.85, p = .004) were associated with greater odds of engaging with peer support. Analysis of number of contacts post-discharge showed consistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of peer support should include a focus on relationship building in the first session of peer support. The potential for peer support to break down barriers to accessing mental health services experienced by people from marginalised communities warrants further investigation.
