BME experiences of language and cultural barriers when accessing IAPT
Research type
Research Study
Full title
The impact of language and culture on Improving Access to Psychological therapy (IAPT)for Black and Minority Ethnic (Pakistani, Somali and Yemeni) patients in Sheffield: An exploration of patients' views
IRAS ID
179036
Contact name
Nahed Arafat
Contact email
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 4 months, days
Research summary
Through previous research, the inability to speak the language of the host country and the cultural differences between health professionals and black and minority ethnic patients (BME) - who are not proficient in the English language - have been widely recognised as one of the major barriers deterring (BME) patients from accessing mental health services. Improving Access to Psychological therapy (IAPT) is an initiative implemented by the Department of Health to achieve better health objectives for patients who suffer from depression and anxiety disorders. However,
when exploring the benefits of such therapies for BME patients, language and cultural issues were raised as potential obstacles to access these services, mainly because it involves the utilisation of language as a medium for communication and establishing good working relationships. If patients are unable to speak with a therapist in the same language, they may not be able to convey their distress properly or respond to the questions appropriately. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to obtain feedback from the three largest BME community groups in Sheffield (Pakistani, Somali and Yemeni) patients who are considered difficult to
engage to inform practices and develop appropriate adaptation of therapy that are effectual and responsive to the wider social context of BME groups.
In addition to the interviews of both IAPT service and secondary mental health care patients which will be the main source of data, the researcher (myself) will be sitting as an observer in some therapeutic sessions and will be writing a personal diary and summarising case studies which might be utilised as anonymous examples to triangulate the data collected.REC name
Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/YH/0195
Date of REC Opinion
12 May 2015
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion