Experiences of South Asian Canadian mental health professionals: Insights from a Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing South Asian population and demand for culturally relevant mental health services in Canada, the perspectives of South Asian mental health professionals remain underrepresented in existing literature. This gap hinders the development of culturally responsive therapeutic practices and impedes the professional development of South Asian Canadian trainees. Thus, this study addressed the research question “What are the experiences of South Asian Canadian mental health professionals working with South Asian clients?” Sub-questions explored their experiences of working with South Asian clients compared to clients from other cultural backgrounds, the impact of cultural identity on therapeutic relationships, the interventions and theories guiding their practice, and their experiences with education and training in the field. Using semi-structured interviews with eight South Asian Canadian mental health professionals, representing ethnic backgrounds from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, this study employed Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA). Key co-constructed themes included the dual role of shared cultural identity as both an asset and challenge in navigating therapeutic dynamics, the influence of the therapist’s multicultural and/or religious identity, culturally adapted interventions highlighting collectivism, family, and spirituality, and systemic gaps in education and training. These findings have significant implications for counsellor education, clinical training, and therapeutic practice, highlighting the need for culturally responsive training, supervision, and professional development. These insights can also inform the development of more effective and inclusive mental health interventions, contributing to improved services for South Asian Canadians.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".