Mental Health in Kenya: Tensions Between Human Rights Approaches and Colonial Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mental health situation in Kenya has been termed a silent epidemic threatening the mental wellbeing of the population. Deeply entrenched stigma and discrimination is systematic and directly influences access to mental health care, human rights violations, and social exclusion. Despite commitments to improve mental health care infrastructure, the ongoing impact of colonization perpetuates biomedical responses to mental health. Kenya ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2008 though mental health, criminal, and civil laws continue to be in violation of the Convention. We take a human rights and equity lens to critically analyze the biomedical dominance in mental health policy and practice. We employ an intersectional analytic framework to contextualize experiences of mental health injustices and apply aspects of an Intersectionality Based Policy Analysis Framework to the Ministry of Health’s Kenya Mental Health Policy 2015-2030 (2015) and the Ministry of East African Community (EAC) Labour and Social Protection’s National Plan of Action on Implementation of Recommendations made by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016) to explore how policy discourses influence understandings of mental health and responses. We analyze a disjuncture between human rights and social determinants framings of mental health in policy, and how a default to western biomedical solutions for addressing mental distress dominate institutionally and in practice. We urge the Kenyan government to abolish coercive mental health practices, remove systemic barriers that hinder participation, and establish supports to empower people with psychosocial disabilities and their organizational representatives (USP-Kenya) to ensure mental health responses are consistent with international human rights treaties.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".