A Qualitative Study to Explore Patients’, Carers’ and Health Professionals’ Views to Culturally Adapt CBT for Psychosis (CBTp) in Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) has an established evidence base and is recommended by the national organizations in United Kingdom and the United States. CBT remains under utilized in low and middle income countries. CBT was developed in the west and it has been suggested that it is underpinned by western values. It therefore follows that to make CBT accessible for non western clients, it needs adapting into a given culture. AIMS: Our aim was to develop guidelines for adapting CBT for psychosis in Pakistan by incorporating the views of the patients, their carers and mental health professionals. METHOD: We conducted a series of qualitative studies in Pakistan to adapt CBT for psychosis (a total of 92 interviews). The data were analyzed by systematic content and question analysis. Analysis started by identifying emerging themes and categories. Themes emerging from the analyses of interviews by each interviewer were compared and contrasted with others interviewers constantly. Triangulation of themes and concepts was undertaken to further compare and contrast the data from the different participating groups. RESULTS: The results of these studies highlighted the barriers in therapy as well as strengths while working with this patient group. Patients and their carers in Pakistan use a bio-psycho-spiritual-social model of illness. They seek help from various sources. Therapists make minor adjustments in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will help therapists working with this client group using CBT for psychosis in Pakistan. These results need to be tested through controlled trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".