Key messages

• personalisation in adult social care aims to increase choice and control through mechanisms such as direct payments, personal budgets and individual service funds
• a systematic review of 45 studies found ethnic minority communities are under-represented among users of personalised care options despite potential benefits
• people from ethnic minority communities may value personalisation because it allows them to arrange culturally appropriate care, including employing personal assistants from similar cultural or linguistic backgrounds
• major barriers to uptake include lack of accessible information about personalisation, language barriers and difficulty navigating complex social care systems
• cultural assumptions in mainstream services and limited availability of culturally appropriate providers can restrict meaningful choice and control
• community and voluntary organisations often act as trusted intermediaries that help people understand and access personalised care, but these organisations have faced funding pressures

Policy implications

• improving awareness of personalisation among ethnic minority communities requires accessible information in multiple languages and formats
• social care providers and commissioners may need to develop culturally competent services and expand the availability of culturally appropriate care options
• supporting community and voluntary sector organisations could help bridge gaps between communities and mainstream social care systems
• recruitment and training strategies may need to focus on building a more diverse and culturally aware care workforce
• improved monitoring of service uptake by ethnicity could help identify inequities and inform commissioning decisions

Gaps

• there is limited robust quantitative data on the uptake and outcomes of personalisation among racially minoritised communities
• much of the existing evidence base consists of qualitative studies, expert commentary and descriptive research
• little research explores the perspectives of front-line care workers or personal assistants working with ethnic minority people who draw on care and support
• further research is needed to understand how personalisation policies affect outcomes for different ethnic and cultural groups

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.