Mental health in Burundi, what is the place of the community ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Access to care for patients with mental health disorders is difficult in Burundi. These patients and their relatives, often stigmatized, can quickly sink into poverty. What role does the community play in the initial care seeking and follow-up by the health facilities for these patients?Methodology: To understand the patient’s pathway, a mixte method design was used. 169 patients answered to a questionnaire and among them 31 were also interviewed.Results: The role of families and relatives is very important, as in 81% of cases they are the ones who identify the mental health problem. They are also the motivating factor to consult a health facility for 69% of the patients. Only 41% sought care at the first signs of the disease and nearly a quarter started in the non-conventional system (prayer houses or traditional healers). Patients describ shifts in their pathway between conventional and non-conventional structures. When prayers or traditional practitioners fail, they switch for health facilities. But in the opposite they also change from caregivers to non-conventional for financial or religious reasons, or because of the influence of a relative. Finally, community health workers are identified as leaders to change the attitude of the community about stigma and also to promote treatment adherence. Conclusion: The role of community seems really important to fight stigma, to accelerate the access to health facilities and to keep the patients in the conventional system. The actors involvement of the non-conventional sector should be considered, as well as a better role for community health workers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".