Disparity in Depression Treatment among Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations in the United States

By Margarita Alegría, Pinka Chatterji, Kenneth Wells, Zhun Cao, Chih‐Nan Chen, D. Takeuchi, J. Jackson, Xiao-Li Meng. Psychiatric Services, 2008

900 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Objective: Prior work on racial/ethnic disparities in depression treatment has been limited by the scarcity of national samples that include an array of diagnostic and quality indicators and substantial non-English speaking minorities. Using nationally representative data (n=8762), we evaluate differences in access to and quality of depression treatments between ethnic/racial minority patients and non-Latino whites. Method: Access to mental health care was assessed by whether or not any mental health treatment was received in the past year. Quality treatment for acute depression was defined as four or more specialty/general health provider visits in the past year plus antidepressant use for 30 days or more; or eight or more specialty mental health provider visits of at least 30 minutes in length, with no antidepressant use. Results: For those with last year depressive disorder, 63.7% of Latinos, 68.7% of Asians and 58.8% of African Americans, vs. 40.2% of non-Latino whites, did not access any last year mental health treatment (significantly different at p<0.001). We also found that the disparities in the likelihood of both having access and receiving quality care for depression are significantly different for all minority groups as contrasted to non-Latino whites, except Latinos (marginally significant). Conclusion: Simply relying on present healthcare systems without considering the unique barriers to quality care that apply for ethnic and racial minorities is unlikely to affect the pattern of disparities observed. Populations reluctant to come to the clinic for depression care may have correctly anticipated the limited quality available in usual care.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Pharmacology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/64681853f449430e22329c5e5d11ae848484b389

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

  1. Jennifer M. Gómez
  2. Thomas W. Frazier
  3. Mitchell J. Prinstein
  4. E. Youngstrom

In Pharmacology

  1. Jennifer M. Gómez

In Social Psychology

  1. Jennifer M. Gómez
  2. Mitchell J. Prinstein
  3. Christina Salmivalli
  4. G. Persson

Citations in the corpus