Perceived impacts as narrated by service users and providers on practice, policy and mental health system following the implementation of the mhGAP-IG using the TEAM model in a rural setting in Makueni County, Kenya: a qualitative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A team approach is key to reduction of the mental health treatment gap. It requires collaborative effort of all formal and informal community based service providers and the consumers of the services. Qualitative evaluations of such an approach add value to the quantitative evaluations. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among 205 participants. These were grouped into a total of 19 focus group discussions for community health workers (CHW), traditional healers (TH), faith healers (FH) and patients. For nurses and clinical officers we held 10 key informant interviews and three key informant discussions. We aimed to document personal perceptions as expressed in narratives on mental health following a community based application of the WHO mental health treatment Gap-intervention guideline (mhGAP-IG) using the TEAM model. We also aimed to document how the narratives corroborated key findings on the quantitative wing of the TEAM model. RESULTS: There were three categories of perceptions: (i) patient-related, (ii) health provider-related and, (iii) health system related. The patient related narratives were linked to improvement in their mental and physical health, increased mental health awareness, change in lifestyle and behavior, enhanced social functioning and an increase in family productivity. Health provider perceptions were related to job satisfaction, capacity building and increased interest in mental health training. Mental health system related narratives included effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery and increase in number of referrals at the primary health care facilities. CONCLUSION: The TEAM is a feasible model for the implementation of the mhGAP-IG. It led to positive perceptions and narratives by service provides and service consumers. The qualitative findings corroborated the quantitative findings of TEAM.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".