Culturally Appropriate Advocacy Evaluation: Mental Health Act Reform

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Culturally appropriate advocacy, improving access, experience and outcomes for racialised people in mental health services.

  • IRAS ID

    339123

  • Contact name

    Anthony Salla

  • Contact email

    anthony.salla@city.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    City, University of London

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 5 months, 31 days

  • Research summary

    Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA) is a type of statutory advocacy. It aims to protect and promote the rights of people who are detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act (MHA). For example, a patient detained on a ward could be supported to request leave to visit home.
    More ethnic minorities are detained in mental healthcare than we should expect. Research also shows they do not have a positive experience, such as not getting the treatment they may need, and very often experiencing racial discrimination. IMHA was identified as a measure to improve their experience. However, research shows ethnic minorities do not always experience IMHA positively.
    The UK government is funding two culturally appropriate advocacy (CAA) pilots, in the West Midlands, and Greater Manchester, lasting 18 months, to see if they can improve the experience for ethnic minorities.
    The study aims to evaluate the two pilots, to understand if, and how, CAA can meet the needs of ethnic minorities.
    We will:
    1. carry out interviews with patients who have used CAA, and mental health professionals, to understand if CAA is protecting and promoting their rights.
    2. gather information about the two pilots, including number of ethnic minorities receiving support, to understand what makes a successful model of CAA.
    Two people with lived experience will be service user researchers, and six people with lived experience will be members of the lived experience advisory panel.
    We will produce and share resources for advocacy organisations on developing CAA, co-produce a strategy with advocacy organisations to optimise impact; and share findings through multi-stakeholder workshops.

  • REC name

    South Central - Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    24/SC/0050

  • Date of REC Opinion

    13 Mar 2024

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion