Browsing by Author "Price, L."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

A survey of traditional and faith healers providing mental health care in three sub-Saharan African countries
(Springer Science + Business Media, 2019) Esan, O.B.; Appiah-Poku, J.; Othieno, C.; Kola, L.; Harris, B.; Nortje, G.; Makanjuola, V.; Oladeji, B.; Price, L.; Seedat, S.; Gureje, O.
Background: Traditional and faith healers constitute an important group of complementary and alternative mental health service providers (CAPs) in sub-Sahara Africa. Governments in the region commonly express a desire to integrate them into the public health system. The aim of the study was to describe the profile, practices and distribution of traditional and faith healers in three sub-Saharan African countries in great need for major improvements in their mental health systems namely Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Materials and methods: A mapping exercise of CAPs who provide mental health care was conducted in selected catchment areas in the three countries through a combination of desk review of existing registers, engagement activities with community leaders and a snowballing technique. Information was collected on the type of practice, the methods of diagnosis and the forms of treatment using a specially designed proforma. Results: We identified 205 CAPs in Ghana, 406 in Kenya and 82 in Nigeria. Most (> 70%) of the CAPs treat both physical and mental illnesses. CAPs receive training through long years of apprenticeship. They use a combination of herbs, various forms of divination and rituals in the treatment of mental disorders. The use of physical restraints by CAPs to manage patients was relatively uncommon in Kenya (4%) compared to Nigeria (63.4%) and Ghana (21%). CAPs often have between 2- to 10-fold capacity for patient admission compared to conventional mental health facilities. The profile of CAPs in Kenya stands out from those of Ghana and Nigeria in many respects. Conclusion: CAPs are an important group of providers of mental health care in sub-Saharan Africa, but attempts to integrate them into the public health system must address the common use of harmful treatment practices.
Collaborative shared care to improve psychosis outcome (COSIMPO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
(BioMed Central, 2017) Gureje, O.; Makanjuola, V.; Kola, L.; Yusuf, B.; Price, L.; Esan, O.B.; Oladeji, B.D.; Appiah-Poku, J.; Haris, B.; Othieno, C.; Seedat, S.
Keywords Background: Psychotic disorders are a group of severe mental disorders that cause considerable disability to sufferers and a high level of burden to families. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), traditional and faith healers are the main providers of care to affected persons. Even though frequently canvassed as desirable for improved care delivery, collaboration between these complementary alternative health providers (CAPs) and conventional health providers has yet to be rigorously tested for feasibility and effectiveness on patient outcomes. Methods/design: COSIMPO is a single-blind, cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in Nigeria and Ghana to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative shared care (CSC) intervention program implemented by CAPs and primary health care providers (PHCPs) with care as usual (CAU) at improving the outcome of patients with psychosis. The study is designed to test the hypotheses that patients receiving CSC will have a better clinical outcome and experience fewer harmful treatment practices from the CAPs than patients receiving CAU at 6 months after study entry. An estimated sample of 296 participants will be recruited from across 51 clusters, with a cluster consisting of a primary care clinic and its neighboring CAP facilities. CSC is a manualized intervention package consisting of regular and scheduled visits of PHCPs to CAP facilities to assist with the management of trial participants. Assistance includes the administration of antipsychotic medications, management of comorbid physical condition, assisting the CAP to avoid harmful treatment practices, and engaging with CAPs, caregivers and participants in planning discharge and rehabilitation. The primary outcome, assessed at 6 months following trial entry, is improvement on the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). Secondary outcomes, assessed at 3 and 6 months, consist of levels of disability, experience of harmful treatment practices and of victimization, and levels of perceived stigma and of caregivers’ burden. Discussion: Information about whether collaboration between orthodox and complementary health providers is feasible and can lead to improved outcome for patients is important to formulating policies designed to formally engage the services of traditional and faith healers within the public health system.
Effect of collaborative care between traditional and faith healers and primary health-care workers on psychosis outcomes in Nigeria and Ghana (COSIMPO): a cluster randomised controlled trial
(Elsevier Ltd, 2020) Gureje, O.; Appiah-Poku, J.; Bello, T.; Kola, L.; Araya, R.; Chisholm, D.; Esan, O.B.; Harris, B.; Makanjuola, V.; Othieno, C.; Price, L.
Background: Traditional and faith healers (TFH) provide care to a large number of people with psychosis in many sub Saharan African countries but they practise outside the formal mental health system. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative shared care model for psychosis delivered by TFH and primary health-care providers (PHCW). Methods: In this cluster-randomised trial in Kumasi, Ghana and Ibadan, Nigeria, we randomly allocated clusters (a primary care clinic and neighbouring TFH facilities) 1:1, stratified by size and country, to an intervention group or enhanced care as usual. The intervention included a manualised collaborative shared care delivered by trained TFH and PHCW. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) newly admitted to TFH facilities with active psychotic symptoms (positive and negative syndrome scale [PANSS] score ≥60). The primary outcome, by masked assessments at 6 months, was the difference in psychotic symptom improvement as measured with the PANSS in patients in follow-up at 3 and 6 months. Patients exposure to harmful treatment practices, such as shackling, were also assessed at 3 and 6 months. Care costs were assessed at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-up, and for the entire 6 months of follow-up. This trial was registered with the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial registry, NCT02895269. Findings: Between Sept 1, 2016, and May 3, 2017, 51 clusters were randomly allocated (26 intervention, 25 control) with 307 patients enrolled (166 [54%] in the intervention group and 141 [46%] in the control group). 190 (62%) of participants were men. Baseline mean PANSS score was 107∙3 (SD 17∙5) for the intervention group and 108∙9 (18∙3) for the control group. 286 (93%) completed the 6-month follow-up at which the mean total PANSS score for intervention group was 53∙4 (19∙9) compared with 67∙6 (23∙3) for the control group (adjusted mean difference –15∙01 (95% CI –21∙17 to –8∙84; 0·0001). Harmful practices decreased from 94 (57%) of 166 patients at baseline to 13 (9%) of 152 at 6 months in the intervention group (–0∙48 [–0∙60 to –0∙37] (p<0.001) and from 59 (42%) of 141 patients to 13 (10%) of 134 in the control group (–0·33 [–0∙45 to –0∙21] (p<0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups. Greater reductions in overall care costs were seen in the intervention group than in the control group. At the 6-month assessment, greater reductions in total health service and time costs were seen in the intervention group; however, cumulative costs over this period were higher (US $627 per patient vs $526 in the control group). Five patients in the intervention group had mild extrapyramidal side effects. Interpretation: A collaborative shared care delivered by TFH and conventional health-care providers for people with psychosis was effective and cost-effective. The model of care offers the prospect of scaling up improved care to this vulnerable population in settings with low resources
Explanatory model of psychosis: impact on perception of self-stigma by patients in three sub-saharan African cities
(Springer Science + Business Media, 2016) Makanjuola, V.; Esan, O.B.; Oladeji, B.; Kola, L.; Appiah-Poku, J.; Harris, B.; Othieno, C.; Price, L.; Seedat, S.; Gureje, O.
Mental disorders are cross-culturally ubiquitous [1]. Psychosis is, by far, the more easily recognisable form of mental disorder by the lay public and traditional healers [2]. While the experience of psychosis is universal, interpretation of the experience, notions of causation, treatment, preferred source of care, and the consequences and perceptions of associated stigma vary from one culture to another. We used a mixed-methods approach consisting of in-depth interviews with key informants to explore respondents’ explanatory models of the causation of psychosis as well as questionnaire assessment of the level of internalized (or self) stigma. The conduct of the interviews was guided by the specifications of the McGill Illness Narrative Interview (MINI) [32], a semi-structured interview guide which, among other things, elicits lay illness narratives. A purposively selected sample of patients who were receiving treatment from traditional healers was interviewed. The transcribed interviews were read several times by the first author and subjected to thematic analysis. Supernatural and biopsychosocial explanatory models of the causation of psychosis were both endorsed by our respondents. Despite this, the majority of the respondents with severe forms of self-stigma held supernatural attributions. However, we also found that some respondents with low self-stigma embraced a supernatural model while some respondents with high self-stigma proffered a biopsychosocial explanation. Our findings suggest that individualising interventions to minimize self-stigma may be a better approach than programs that generically promote biopsychosocial models or discourage supernatural models.