Task shifting—perception of stake holders about adequacy of training and supervision for community mental health workers in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".