Cultural Constructions of Trauma and the Therapeutic Interventions of Caribbean Healing Traditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychological literature indicates that integrating traditional healing practices into counselling and psychotherapy with Caribbean clients may address some of the mental health concerns of this population and the underutilization of mental health services. Traditional healing is often used in lieu of mental health services; however, the lack of knowledge of the precise therapeutic interventions and mechanisms of change that are key components to such integration limit its clinical utility. To address this gap in the literature, this study explored the specific ways in which Caribbean individuals conceptualize trauma and the therapeutic interventions of Caribbean healing traditions as a treatment modality. A constructivist grounded theory approach was implemented in the data collection and analysis. Ten adults of Caribbean heritage living in Toronto, who used the therapeutic interventions of Caribbean healing traditions, each participated in one semi-structured interview. Three overarching themes emerged from the data: experiencing trauma and suffering, explanations and meaning of trauma and suffering, and healing interventions. The study highlights the role of history and culture in shaping idioms of trauma, distress and healing, and contributes to both research and practice by offering a substantive framework for assessing, diagnosing and treating Caribbean clients, which may address the many challenges to mental health care for this population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".