Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:53:54.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Missing ethnic density data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Hinesh Topiwala*
Affiliation:
CT2 in Psychiatry, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, UK. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013 

To investigate the concept of ethnic density one would have to draw a sample representative of the rich diversity of ethnicities in England. Modood & Berthoud Reference Modood and Berthoud1 define ethnic group as:

‘a community whose heritage offers important characteristics in common between its members and which makes them distinct from other communities. There is a boundary, which separates ”us” from ”them”, and the distinction would probably be recognised on both sides of that boundary. Ethnicity is a multi-faceted phenomenon based on physical appearance, subjective identification, cultural and religious affiliation, stereotyping, and social exclusion.’

The study by Das-Munshi et al Reference Das-Munshi, Bécares, Boydell, Dewey, Morgan and Stansfeld2 included White British, Irish, Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani respondents. In the EMPIRIC study, ethnicity was defined by self-assessment using the same categories as the 1991 Census. Reference Weich, Nazroo, Sproston, McManus, Blanchard and Erens3 The 1991 Census collected data on nine ethnicity groups: White, Black Caribbean, Black African, Black other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese and any other ethnic group. 4 Das-Munshi et al's study has not looked at four of the nine ethnic subgroups listed and is therefore not representative of the ethnicities in England.

Das-Munshi et al have not explained the significant nonparticipation of candidates (37.8%) in the study, making it difficult to draw conclusions from the data. Owing to various factors – including that of participants having moved out of the survey area or to an unknown new address, or the participant having died or reached the age of 75 after the sample was drawn – 11% of the sample was no longer eligible for interview. 5

Of eligible individuals, refusals were received in person directly from the selected participant in 18% of cases, a further 2% refusing by post and 2% being proxy refusals. Most non-contacts resulted from the interviewer being unable to make contact with the participant, although there were also cases where no contact was made with anyone at the household after four or more telephone call attempts. The most common reason for any other unproductive outcome was that the participant was away on holiday or in hospital throughout the survey period. 5

References

1 Modood, T, Berthoud, R. Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage - The Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities. Policy Studies institute, 1998.Google Scholar
2 Das-Munshi, J, Bécares, L, Boydell, JE, Dewey, ME, Morgan, c, Stansfeld, SA, et al Ethnic density as a buffer for psychotic experiences: findings from a national survey (EMPIRIC). Br J Psychiatry 2012; 201: 282–90.Google Scholar
3 Weich, s, Nazroo, J, Sproston, K, McManus, S, Blanchard, M, Erens, B, et al Common mental disorders and ethnicity in England: the EMPIRIC study. Psychol Med 2004; 34: 1543–51.Google Scholar
4 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. 1991 Census: Definitions, Great Britain. HMSO, 1992.Google Scholar
5 UK Data Archive. Ethnic Minority Psychiatric Illness Rates In The Community (EMPIRIC): User Guide for UK Data Archive. UKDA, no date (http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/4685/mrdoc/pdf/4685userguide.pdf).Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.