Perceptions of Traditional Healing for Mental Illness in Rural Gujarat
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite the significant toll of mental illness on the Indian population, resources for patients often are scarce, especially in rural areas. Traditional healing has a long history in India and is still widely used, including for mental illnesses. However, its use has rarely been studied systematically. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the perspective of patients, their families, and healthy community members toward faith healing for mental illness, including the type of interventions received, perceptions of its efficacy, and overall satisfaction with the process. We also sought to explore the range of care received in the community and investigate possibilities for enhancing mental health treatment in rural Gujarat. METHODS: We interviewed 49 individuals in July 2013 at Dhiraj General Hospital and in 8 villages surrounding Vadodara. A structured qualitative interview elicited attitudes toward faith healing for mental illnesses and other diseases. Qualitative analysis was performed on the completed data set using grounded theory methodology. FINDINGS: Subjects treated by both a doctor and a healer reported they overwhelmingly would recommend a doctor over a healer. Almost all who were treated with medication recognized an improvement in their condition. Many subjects felt that traditional healing can be beneficial and believed that patients should initially go to a healer for their problems. Many also felt that healers are not effective for mental illness or are dishonest and should not be used. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were largely dissatisfied with their experiences with traditional healers, but healing is still an incredibly common first-line practice in Gujarat. Because healers are such integral parts of their communities and so commonly sought out, collaboration between faith healers and medical practitioners would hold significant promise as a means to benefit patients. This partnership could improve access to care and decrease the burden of mental illness experienced by patients and their communities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».