The use of Traditional Medicine by Ghanaians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research into health and health-care seeking behaviour amongst immigrant populations suggests that culturally-based behaviours change over time towards those prevalent in the host culture. Such acculturation of immigrant groups occurs as part of the interaction of immigrants with mainstream culture. This study examined the acculturation of Ghanaian immigrants in Greater Toronto Area (Canada) focusing particularly on attitudes towards and usage of Ghanaian traditional medicine (TRM). METHODS: The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Structured questionnaire interviews were conducted with a sample of Ghanaians in active collaboration with the Ghanaian-Canadian Association in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A total of 512 questionnaire interviews were conducted. In addition, three focus groups of nine participants each were conducted with a sub-sample of Ghanaians in Canada. RESULTS: Both the questionnaire and the focus groups indicated that nearly 73% of the Ghanaian immigrants in Canada have a positive attitude toward Ghanaian TRM. This is in comparison with less than 30% who have changed their attitude for various reasons. Some of the attraction of TRM lies in its holistic origin. Ghanaians in the GTA have been pursuing 'integration' and 'assimilation' in their acculturation in Canada. Some have given up or modified some of their attitudes and opinions toward TRM to embrace the 'modern' or 'civilized' way of living. CONCLUSION: There is the need for health care providers and other stakeholders to be aware of the influence of religion on African immigrants during their acculturation process. Although modernity is said to be founded on the 'ruthless undermining of tradition', there is no evidence to suggest that Ghanaian traditional religion has been undermined to such an extent that there is a major change in attitudes towards TRM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".