Perspectives of mental health professionals on kinship care for persons with mental illness in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, people with mental illness are more likely to present poor social, health and economic outcomes than the general population. While formal mental health services have been integral to the wellbeing of these vulnerable individuals, the relevance of kinship support in their lives cannot be overemphasized. Mental health practitioners play a crucial role in navigating the complex dynamics inherent in family relationships when mental illness is present. As such, their perspectives could shed light on the intricate dynamics of kinship care and emphasize the need for tailored interventions that address the diverse issues within familial contexts. In this qualitative study, the perspectives of twenty mental health professionals on kinship care for persons with severe and persistent mental illness in Ghana were explored. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews and were analyzed via content analysis. The mental health professionals mainly understood kinship care as nuclear and extended family members providing support to their ill relative, albeit mostly with reference to nuclear family support. While kinship was deemed relevant due to the bonds that tie family members, some drawbacks were noted. When working with patients and their families, mental health professionals are expected to assess the availability of kinship support from the patient’s perspective in collaboration with the family members before deciding whether to integrate kinship into their support services.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".