“What’s the Point of Having This Conversation?”: From a Telephone Crisis Helpline in Bangladesh to the Decolonization of Mental Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the HCI work on mental health is based on the Western metaphysical definition of mind that is less applicable outside the West. This article focuses on this issue and critically examines “ Kaan Pete Roi ” (KPR), a suicide prevention and emotional support helpline in Bangladesh, through an interview study with 20 participants. We find that KPR’s service, grounded in the “befriending” model—originating from the UK and emphasizing non-judgmental active listening without offering direct advice—often struggles to ensure callers’ safety, provide long-term support, and protect volunteers from harassment and distress. We argue that such failures are often rooted in some foundational ideas of the UK-born “befriending” model that underpins the service. Building on Enrique Dussel’s decolonial philosophy, we argue that “befriending” model and its underpinning Western metaphysical ideation of mind carry a colonial impulse, and we discuss how community-based approaches may better address the mental health problems in the Global South.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".