Towards a contextually appropriate framework to guide counseling of torture survivors in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: If the right to rehabilitation is to become a meaningful reality for torture survivors in sub-Saharan Africa, it is necessary that counseling practice be responsive to the contextual and cultural demands of the region. Recent reviews of evidence-based practice with torture survivors are discussed with a focus on those approaches developed and/or tested with torture survivors in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: The results of a mixed methods study of ongoing torture rehabilitation work are reported. This study incorporated a review of 85 case files of torture survivors treated at torture rehabilitation centers in three countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and in depth interviews with fifteen counsellors and fourteen clients at those same centers. Quantitative data are presented in tabular form supported by uni- and bi-variate statistical analyses as appropriate. Qualitative data are presented in terms of themes identified through emergent coding. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Help-seeking torture survivors in this region are a diverse and highly symptomatic group, often struggling to survive with their families in precarious circumstances and under ongoing threat. In addition to incorporating key aspects of existing evidence-based practice, counselors also use a range of psychosocial approaches to assist torture survivors to protect and support their families in the face of seemingly overwhelming life challenges. We propose that more systematic methodologies that facilitate the inclusion of the voices of clients and clinicians in ongoing international debates relating to evidencebased practice with torture survivors will enhance the application of such practices in diverse contexts.
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 | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".