Religious‐Tailoring of Mental Health Services in Ontario: A Qualitative Study Exploring Service User and Provider Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to explore the experiences of Muslim mental health service users and providers in Ontario, Canada. With a focus on understanding mental health service barriers and facilitators, the research also sought to identify service user and provider recommendations and highlight the capacity for addressing gaps within service utilization and delivery by adopting religious tailoring with the Muslim community. This was carried out through a CBPAR approach to conduct diverse focus groups with Muslim service users and service providers across Ontario, Canada. The results indicate mistrust towards Eurocentric models, cultural stigma, and insufficient provision of religiously and culturally congruent care significantly hinder engagement. Nevertheless, religious tailoring-incorporating elements such as Imams, faith-based counseling, and community-based interventions-emerges as an effective strategy to overcome these challenges. The study powerfully emphasizes the success of integrating mental health services within mosques and Muslim-led organizations, equipping Imams with skills in psychospiritual counseling, and weaving Islamic coping mechanisms into therapeutic practices. The study concludes with 11 practical recommendations based upon service user and provider suggestions that can empower policymakers, practitioners, and Muslim communities to enhance mental health accessibility and encourage meaningful engagement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".