Forming a joint dialogue among faith healers, traditional healers and formal health workers in mental health in a Kenyan setting: towards common grounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Qualitative evidence on dialogue formation and collaboration is very scanty in Kenya. This study thus aimed at the formation of dialogue and establishment of collaboration among the informal (faith and traditional healers) and formal health workers (clinicians) in enhancing community-based mental health in rural Kenya. METHODS: Qualitative approach was used to identify barriers and solutions for dialogue formation by conducting nine Focus Group Discussions each consisting of 8-10 participants. Information on age, gender and role in health care setting as well as practitioners' (henceforth used to mean informal (faith and traditional healers) and formal health workers) perceptions on dialogue was collected to evaluate dialogue formation. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis was performed using thematic content analysis and Statistical Package Social Sciences (SPSS) software respectively. RESULTS: We identified four dominant themes such as; (i) basic understanding about mental illnesses, (ii) interaction and treatment skills of the respondents to mentally ill persons, (iii) referral gaps and mistrust among the practitioners and (iv) dialogue formation among the practitioners. Although participants were conversant with the definition of mental illness and had interacted with a mentally ill person in their routine practice, they had basic information on the causes and types of mental illness. Traditional and faith healers felt demeaned by the clinicians who disregarded their mode of treatment stereotyping them as "dirty". After various discussions, majority of practitioners showed interest in collaborating with each other and stated that they had joined the dialogue in order interact with people committed to improving the lives of patients. CONCLUSION: Dialogue formation between the formal and the informal health workers is crucial in establishing trust and respect between both practitioners and in improving mental health care in Kenya. This approach could be scaled up among all the registered traditional and faith healers in Kenya.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".