endeavour should at this point be apparent and therefore, should stimulate further thought on how to achieve cultural relativity and understanding in this day and age of inter-cultural barterization in mental health settings. Concurrently, another vital change that needs to take place is related to mental health monitoring. The quantitative statistics from the NHS have revealed a significant gap in the knowledge as a result of limited data collection methods; one which uses indicators that do not reflect on the patient demographic cohorts accurately. What needs to be achieved is to introduce more variables and questions related to immigration status and languages so that future monitoring and research can initiate with new perspectives and find more meaningful connections. Much remains to be clarified on the relationship between immigrant status, and linguistic communication across cultures in relation to schizophrenia. The only way we can start achieving more commonsensical correlations, if any, would be to reshuffle the current embedded structures of data collection methods within the NHS. Ethnicity as an entity itself is no longer sufficient as a tool to exploring cross-cultural differences. The NHS ought to specifically add the following indicators, nationally, as part of their patient data collection processes: •
Country of Origin
•
Nationality/nationalities
•
Languages spoken
•
Years lived in the UK, (if immigrant)
The third recommendation on the level of the macrosystem is with regards to research methods strategies. Especially within the last decade, cross-cultural qualitative pieces on schizophrenia have been taken more seriously, and concerns over establishing 270