Bipolar disorders in Nigeria: a mixed-methods study of patients, family caregivers, clinicians, and the community members’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar Disorders (BDs) are chronic mental health disorders that often result in functional impairment and contribute significantly to the disability-adjusted life years (DALY). BDs are historically under-researched compared to other mental health disorders, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria. DESIGN: We adopted a mixed-methods design. Study 1 examined the public knowledge of BDs in relation to sociodemographic outcomes using quantitative data whilst Study 2 qualitatively assessed the lived experiences of patients with BDs, clinicians, and family caregivers. METHODS: In Study 1, a non-clinical sample of n = 575 participants responded to a compact questionnaire that examined their knowledge of BDs and how they relate to certain sociodemographic variables. One-way ANOVA was used to analyse quantitative data. Study 2 interviewed N = 15 participants (n = 5 patients with BDs; n = 7 clinicians; n = 3 family caregivers). These semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: In Study 1, findings showed no statistically significant differences, suggesting low awareness of BDs, especially among vulnerable populations such as young people and older adults. However, there was a trajectory in increased knowledge of BDs among participants between the ages of 25-44 years and part-time workers compared to other ages and employment statuses. In Study 2, qualitative findings showed that BDs are perceived to be genetically and psycho-socially induced by specific lived experiences of patients and their family caregivers. Although psychotropic medications and psychotherapy are available treatment options in Nigeria, cultural and religious beliefs were significant barriers to treatment uptake. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into knowledge and beliefs about BDs, including the lived experiences of patients with BDs, their caregivers and clinicians in Nigeria. It highlights the need for further studies assessing Nigeria's feasibility and acceptability of culturally adapted psychosocial interventions for patients with BDs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".