Traditional, religious, and cultural perspectives on mental illness: a qualitative study on causal beliefs and treatment use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Limited information is known from studies regarding traditional, religious, and cultural perspectives on mental illness and the use of traditional and alternative therapies by mentally ill people in Indonesia. This study explored traditional, religious, and cultural beliefs about causes of mental illness and the use of traditional/alternative treatments for mentally ill patients. METHOD: We adopted a qualitative content analysis method as proposed by Schreier. This study was conducted at a mental Hospital in Indonesia. We interviewed 15 nurses and 15 patients. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis method. RESULTS: Five discrete but interrelated themes emerged: 1) Possessed illness and belief in supernatural forces; 2) Sinful or cursed illness; 3) Witchcraft or human-made illness; 4) traditional/alternative treatments; and 5) Barriers to treatment of mental illness. CONCLUSION: Traditional/alternative treatments play an important role in meeting the need for mental health treatment. The findings are relevant for mental health nurses who provide direct to their patients, and for other areas of mental health practice. We also found a lack of knowledge about the causes of mental illness among patients and families. Education should be at the heart of mental health promotion to raise the level of mental health literacy in Indonesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".