Exploring mental health practice among Traditional health practitioners: a qualitative study in rural Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Involvement of traditional health practitioners (THPs) in the form of collaboration with the formal health care system is suggested to improve the pathways to mental health care in Kenya, yet understanding of the current traditional practice and THPs' perspectives is lacking. The aim of this study was to explore the views of THPs with respect to their mental health practice. METHODS: This study qualitatively explored the views of THPs, using four focus group discussions (FDGs) each consisting of 8-10 traditional and faith healers, resulting in a total of 36 participants. Thematic content analysis using a grounded theory approach was performed using QSR NVivo 10. Emerging topics were identified and examined by re-reading the transcripts several times and constantly re-sorting the material. RESULTS: Four themes that reflect THPs' mental health practice perspectives emerged as follows: 1) Categorization of mental illness; 2) Diagnostics in traditional mental health practice; 3) Treatments and challenges in current traditional mental health practice; and 4) Solutions to improve traditional mental health practice. CONCLUSIONS: These themes provide insight into the perspectives of Kenyan traditional and faith healers on their mental health practice, in an attempt to offer a meaningful contribution to the debate on collaboration between informal and formal health care providers in improving mental health services in Kenya. Furthermore, the presented challenges and solutions can inform policy makers in their task to improve and scale up mental health services in resource-poor areas in Kenya. Addressing these issues would be a first step towards understanding the solid foundation of traditional medicine that is necessary before collaboration can be successfully attempted. Further research is also recommended to assess patients' needs and explore potential forms of collaboration, in order to achieve sustainable improvement in the mental health care pathways for patients.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".