Table 6 Summary of findings on ethnicity across studies. AOR = adjusted odds ratio. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence intervals. UR = uptake rate

Artac et al., 2013 [20]

In Year 2, higher in patients of South Asian (AOR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.25–1.78, p < .010) and Black ethnicity (AOR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.43–1.75, p < .010) and Others (AOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.07–1.25, p < .010), where White is baseline.

Attwood et al., 2016 [19]

No difference between White ethnicity vs. Other ethnicity (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.21–1.57)

Cook et al., 2016 [26]

Higher uptake amongst Mixed White and Asian males (UR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.66–0.99, p < .001), Caribbean males (UR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.62–0.76, p < .001),Chinese males (UR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45–0.84, p < .010), Chinese females (UR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.72–0.99, p < .001), White/Black Caribbean females (UR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63–0.87, p < .001), White Irish females (UR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.64–0.80, p < .001), and Black Caribbean females (UR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.64–0.77, p < .001).

Lower uptake amongst any other white patients (male UR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.24–0.30, p < .001; female UR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.31–0.38, p < .001) and Black African females (UR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.37–0.47, p < .010).

Dalton et al., 2011 [24]

When compared to White British patients, uptake higher in patients of South Asian (AOR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.29–2.27, p < .001) and mixed ethnic backgrounds (AOR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.50–3.89, p = .015).

Gidlow et al., 2014 [9]

No difference between White, Mixed, Asian, Black or Other ethnicity groups (X² = 0.769, p = .380)

McDermott et al., 2018 [25]

Higher uptake amongst Asian (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.63–2.67, p < .001), African/Caribbean (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.86–2.49, p < .001) and mixed (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 2.07–4.62, p < .001) ethnicity groups compared to White patients.