Into the looking glass on cultural and religious competent care: optimizing healthcare for Haredi individuals with mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that minority groups tend to underuse healthcare services. One community whose experiences remain particularly under-researched in the Western world is Haredi Jews- a diverse group of individuals committed to traditional Talmudic and Halakhah teachings and observances. This presentation aims to enhance participants' understanding of mental health-seeking behaviours and challenges faced by Haredi individuals. We conducted a qualitative study that involved in-depth interviews with 24 adults who identified as Haredi and used mental health services, as well as informal consultations with local rabbis and community leaders. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Analysis revealed several important themes, including: (1) Strength of religious practices, community, and relationship with God as a factor determining mental well-being. (2) Implications of devotion to religion within the patient-physician encounter. (3) Stigma and acknowledged lack of awareness surrounding mental health in Haredi communities. These themes will be explored in the presentation, which will aim to bring light to participants’ lived experiences. We hope to address the proverbial "elephant in the room" often ignored or overlooked, as encountered by Haredi community members and their interactions with the healthcare system. We will present the unique strengths and challenges related to mental health encountered by Haredi Jews in our study, while discussing potential measures that can produce better health outcomes and culturally sensitive care for Haredi individuals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".