Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary
This paper examines how dementia services in the UK fail to meet the needs of Black and minoritised communities, despite longstanding policy commitments to inclusion. It shows a clear gap between national ambitions and what is delivered locally. 

A key issue is late access to care. Many individuals from these communities only engage with services at crisis point, which limits access to early diagnosis, treatment and support that could improve quality of life. 

Barriers are multiple and intersecting. These include limited awareness of dementia, language and literacy challenges, and difficulty navigating complex health and social care systems. Cultural expectations around family care also shape help-seeking, particularly where services are not seen as culturally appropriate. 

The study also highlights the role of structural factors. Experiences of racism and discrimination, alongside a lack of culturally competent services, contribute to mistrust and disengagement. At the same time, people from these communities are more likely to experience wider socio-economic disadvantage, which increases dementia risk over the life course. 

Policy frameworks such as the National Dementia Strategy emphasise inclusive and person-centred care. However, the decentralised nature of commissioning means that implementation varies widely. This creates geographical inequities, with some areas offering tailored services while others provide little targeted support. 

From a care equity perspective, the findings show that inequities are present across the entire dementia pathway, from prevention and diagnosis through to end-of-life care. Without stronger accountability and culturally appropriate service design, these disparities are likely to persist.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This review highlights the importance of equity-driven approaches that explicitly address barriers faced by ethnic minority populations. While a wide range of interventions is covered, the evidence base remains weighted towards service-level change rather than structural action.

Participatory approaches, including community health worker programmes and co-designed care pathways, are identified as particularly promising. These approaches centre lived experience and help ensure that services reflect the cultural, linguistic and social contexts of the people they aim to support.

Culturally tailored education, multilingual tools and peer-supported interventions are shown to improve outcomes for people managing long-term conditions. In social care, similar approaches may help people navigate complex systems and reduce exclusion linked to language or cultural mismatch.

The review also highlights the benefits of integrating mental health and primary care. From a care equity perspective, joined-up provision may reduce fragmentation that disproportionately affects marginalised groups and improve continuity of support.

However, the limited focus on structural interventions points to an important gap. Addressing inequities in health and social care is likely to require action beyond services alone, including policies that tackle poverty, housing insecurity and financial stress, which shape people’s ability to access and benefit from care.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This article highlights how inequities in child protection can arise through subtle and often unintentional forms of racism. Even where professionals explicitly reject prejudice, practice may still reflect assumptions and stereotypes that disadvantage Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.

The findings suggest that approaches framed as neutral or objective can obscure cultural context and reinforce unequal power dynamics. This has implications for how risk, parenting and need are interpreted within child protection systems.

From a care equity perspective, the study points to the importance of recognising how institutional norms and professional judgement can produce unequal experiences for racialised groups. Addressing inequity requires more than individual goodwill and depends on critical reflection within systems.

However, the evidence is based on practitioner interviews and does not include direct accounts from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families. This limits understanding of lived experience and highlights the need for further research that centres the voices of children and families affected by child protection interventions.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study highlights how inequities in mental health care are shaped by a combination of personal, cultural and service-level barriers. Stigma, cultural identity and reluctance to discuss distress limit help-seeking, while financial pressures further restrict access to support.

Service-level factors compound these inequities. Long waiting times, language barriers and poor communication weaken relationships between service users and providers, increasing the risk that mental health needs go unrecognised or unsupported.

The findings also point to unequal power dynamics within care interactions. Experiences of cultural naivety and discrimination, alongside limited awareness of available services, place Black and minority ethnic service users at a particular disadvantage.

From a care equity perspective, these barriers contribute to uneven access, experience and outcomes in mental health services. Addressing them requires changes to how services communicate, recognise need and share power with the people they support, rather than relying solely on individual help-seeking.

Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This report highlights clear inequities in access to support for Black, Asian and minority ethnic young carers. Although young carers from ethnic minority communities are more likely to have caring responsibilities, they are under-represented within formal support services, suggesting unmet need and barriers to access.

Cultural factors play a central role in shaping these inequities. Lack of awareness of services, concerns about stigma and expectations around family responsibility contribute to under-reporting of caring roles, reducing opportunities for assessment and support.

The evidence points to the importance of targeted and culturally competent approaches. Without services that reflect cultural context and address awareness and trust, existing systems risk continuing to exclude some young carers.

However, the report provides limited insight into wider structural drivers, such as poverty or policy design, that may further compound disadvantage. From a care equity perspective, addressing both cultural and structural barriers is likely to be necessary to improve access, experience and outcomes for Black, Asian and minority ethnic young carers.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study highlights how inequities in access to care and support for older migrants are shaped by language barriers, cultural mismatch and limited familiarity with UK systems. These factors contribute to exclusion and isolation, reducing opportunities to engage with services.

The findings also emphasise the role of trust. Cultural competency gaps and prior experiences of institutions shape expectations and willingness to seek support, particularly where services are perceived as unresponsive or inaccessible.

From a care equity perspective, the evidence shows how mainstream service models can disadvantage people who do not share dominant linguistic or cultural norms. Without adaptation, systems risk reinforcing unequal access and outcomes.

The study also points to important evidence gaps. Limited representation of less-studied migrant groups restricts understanding of variation in need, underlining the value of locally driven and culturally sensitive research to inform more equitable service design.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This systematic review synthesises evidence on how ethnic minority communities experience personalisation within UK adult social care. Personalisation policies are intended to increase choice and control over care through mechanisms such as direct payments and personal budgets.

The evidence suggests that personalisation can support culturally appropriate care. People may use personal budgets to employ personal assistants who understand their language, culture or religious practices, which can improve comfort and communication. In theory, this flexibility could improve access to services that align with people’s preferences and cultural needs.

However, multiple barriers limit the practical impact of personalisation for ethnic minority communities. Many studies report limited awareness of available options, difficulty navigating complex systems and inadequate information about entitlements. Language barriers and cultural misunderstandings can further reduce engagement with services.

From a care equity perspective, the review highlights how structural features of the social care system may unintentionally reinforce existing inequalities. When culturally appropriate providers are scarce or information about services is inaccessible, the promise of “choice and control” becomes difficult to realise in practice.

The findings also emphasise the role of community and voluntary organisations as trusted intermediaries that help individuals understand and access personalised care. However, funding pressures affecting these organisations may reduce their ability to support communities who already face barriers to mainstream services.

Overall, the review suggests that personalisation policies alone are unlikely to reduce inequities in adult social care. Improving equity will likely require culturally competent service design, stronger community engagement and better monitoring of access and outcomes across different population groups.