Mapping resources available for early identification and recovery-oriented intervention for people with psychosis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is a pressing need to reduce the long duration of untreated illness and improve care and outcomes for people with psychosis in Ethiopia. This study aimed to map community resources that have the potential to be leveraged to achieve earlier and more recovery-oriented interventions for people with psychosis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Method A strength-based resource mapping exercise was undertaken in two sub-cities, covering an estimated population of half a million people. We identified the types of resources to be mapped, based on their importance for multi-sectoral care in mental health: healthcare facilities, religious organisations, traditional and faith healers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and social/community organisations. The lead investigator traversed the study sites to gather information on community resources, recorded the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of the resources, and consulted with key informants. The information obtained was complemented by a participatory Theory of Change workshop attended by 30 stakeholders. Results We identified 124 health facilities, of which only 16 health centres and nine hospitals currently provide mental health services. We identified three registered traditional healers, 38 religious organisations, 104 non-governmental organisations, and other charitable/community-based organisations. In addition, three health facilities, six holy water religious healing sites, and four traditional healers were identified as out-of-site resources that were popular and frequently visited by people living in the sub-cities. The two sub-cities also had six feeding centres each providing meals for 1000 people in need. There were extensive networks of social organisations and community-based associations. Existing care pathways are complex but commonly include traditional and religious healing sites as places of first contact. Conclusions We identified important available resources that provide a wealth of opportunities for improving the early identification and outcomes of people with psychosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".