Mental Health Inequities and the Global South: Towards an Ethical Framework of Harmony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article establishes the foundations of an ethical framework of harmony as a policy pathway towards equitable access to mental health care and resources in the global south. It explores existing policies and strategies for mental health in Africa and points to the need to underpin the relevant approaches with an ethical framework of harmony. The insights reflect on the disproportionately low attention given to mental health care, despite its high burden tying to social, cultural and moral distress among affected persons and their communities. Against this background, a critical analysis of the dominant Western approach to mental health demonstrates how underlying epistemic assumptions are prioritised over lived experiences, resulting in mental health care approaches and policies that do not reflect local and lived realities. This paper shows that, to be effective, mental health care approaches and policies must reflect local social, cultural and moral experiences in African contexts and other similar contexts in the global south. It proposes a communitarian ethical framework of harmony, which reflects local and lived contextual realities, to guide approaches and policy processes towards effective mental health reforms.
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 | 0.056 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".