Improving Ghana's Mental Health Care Through Task Shifting – Psychiatrists and Health Policy Directors Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Currently, Ghana has only twelfth psychiatrists in active service providing for the mental health needs of a population of nearly 25 million people. Ghana has therefore adopted a system of task-shifting to address the critical shortage of psychiatrists. Aim To examine the perception of psychiatrists and health policy directors about the government's policy to expand metal health care delivery in Ghana through a system of task-shifting from psychiatrists to community mental health workers (CMHWs). Methods A self-administered semi-structured questionnaire was developed and administered to 11 psychiatrists and 29 health policy directors. Results Only one psychiatrist and 3 (10.3%) health policy directors reported they were not aware of task-shifting within Ghana's mental health delivery system. Ten (91.1%) psychiatrists and 23 (79.3%) health policy directors were aware of a policy of the Government of Ghana to improve on the human resource base within mental health through a system task-shifting. Overall, 5 (45.5%) of the psychiatrists and 9 (31%) health policy directors perceived there are some resistance to the implementation of a policy of task shifting including resistance from traditional and spiritual healers, some psychiatrists, some community psychiatric nurses and psychologists. The majority of psychiatrists and health policy directors were of the view that CMHWs should be allowed to assess, diagnose and treat most of the common mental disorders. Conclusion Psychiatrists and health policy directors in Ghana support Governments policy to expand on mental health care delivery through a system of task-shifting despite their knowledge of resistance from certain professionals. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".