Task shifting—perception of stake holders about adequacy of training and supervision for community mental health workers in Ghana
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is growing interest in the effectiveness of task shifting as a strategy for addressing expanding health care challenges in settings with shortages of qualified health personnel. The aim of this study is to examine the perception of stakeholders about the adequacy of training, supervision and support offered to community mental health workers (CMHWs) in Ghana. To address this aim we designed and administered self-completed, semi-structured questionnaires adapted to three specific stakeholder groups in Ghana. The questionnaires were administered to 11 psychiatrists, 29 health policy implementers/coordinators and 164 CMHWs, across Ghana, including 71 (43.3%) Community Psychiatric Nurses (CPNs), 19 (11.6%) Clinical Psychiatric Officers (CPOs) and 74 (45.1%) Community Mental Health Officers (CMHOs). Almost all the stakeholders believed CMHWs in Ghana receive adequate training for the role they are expected to play although many identify some gaps in the training of these mental health workers for the expanded roles they actually play. There were statistically significant differences between the different CMHW groups and the types of in-service training they said they had attended, the frequency with which their work was supervised, and the frequency with which they received feedback from supervisors. CPOs were more likely to attend all the different kinds of in-service training than CMHOs and CPNs, while CMHOs were more likely than CPOs and CPNs to report that their work is never supervised or that they rarely or never receive feedback from supervisors. There was disparity between what CMHWs said were their experiences and the perception of policy makers with respect to the types of in-service training that is available to CMHWs. There is a need to review the task shifting arrangements, perhaps with a view to expanding it to include more responsibilities, and therefore review the curriculum of the training institution for CMHWs and also to offer them regular in-service training and formal supervision.
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 | 0,001 | 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 ».