Prevalence & experience of contact with traditional healers among patients with first-episode psychosis in Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with mental disorders in Malaysia often seek help from traditional healers prior to consulting psychiatric service. The objective of the study is to determine the prevalence and experience of contact with traditional healers among patients with first-episode psychosis in Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL). Methods: This is a hospital-based cross-sectional descriptive study of 50 in-patients with first-episode psychosis in HKL. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Clinical Version for Axis I Disorders (SCID-CV) was used for establishing diagnosis. Socio-demographic data, information on help-seeking pathways, and experience of contact with traditional healers were determined through face-to-face interview and semi-structured questionnaires. Results: Twenty seven (54%) of the patients had at least one contact with traditional healers prior to consulting psychiatric service, and it was the most popular first point of non-psychiatric help-seeking contact (48%). About a quarter of them (24%) had 3 or more contacts with traditional healers prior to consulting psychiatric service. The most common type of traditional treatment received was prayer (25, 96.3%). Only 2 patients (7.41%) reported having some beneficial effects from traditional treatments. There were two patients who reported having adverse experience with traditional healers. Among those who had sought help from traditional healers, one third was recommended by at least one of their traditional healers to seek medical help. Conclusion: History of contact with traditional healers prior to consulting psychiatric service was common among inpatients with first-episode psychosis in HKL. There may be potential meaningful collaborations between psychiatrists and traditional healers for better management of patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".