Search

We examined the scope of collaborative care for persons with mental illness as implemented by traditional healers, faith healers, and biomedical care providers. We conducted semistructured focus group discussions in Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria with traditional healers, faith healers, biomedical care providers, patients, and their caregivers. Transcribed data were thematically analyzed. A barrier to collaboration was distrust, influenced by factionalism, charlatanism, perceptions of superiority, limited roles, and responsibilities. Pathways to better collaboration were education, formal policy recognition and regulation, and acceptance of mutual responsibility. This study provides a novel cross-national insight into the perspectives of collaboration from four stakeholder groups. Collaboration was viewed as a means to reach their own goals, rooted in a deep sense of distrust and superiority. In the absence of openness, understanding, and respect for each other, efficient collaboration remains remote. The strongest foundation for mutual collaboration is a shared sense of responsibility for patient well-being.

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., Trial Registration: National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial registry, ID: NCT02895269 . Registered on 30 July 2016.

Traditional and complementary systems of medicine include a broad range of practices, which are commonly embedded in cultural milieus and reflect community beliefs, experiences, religion, and spirituality. Two major components of this system are discernible: complementary alternative medicine and traditional medicine, with different clientele and correlates of patronage. Evidence from around the world suggests that a traditional or complementary system of medicine is commonly used by a large number of people with mental illness. Practitioners of traditional medicine in low-income and middle-income countries fill a major gap in mental health service delivery. Although some overlap exists in the diagnostic approaches of traditional and complementary systems of medicine and conventional biomedicine, some major differences exist, largely in the understanding of the nature and cause of mental disorders. Treatments used by providers of traditional and complementary systems of medicine, especially traditional and faith healers in low-income and middle-income countries, might sometimes fail to meet widespread understandings of human rights and humane care. Nevertheless, collaborative engagement between traditional and complementary systems of medicine and conventional biomedicine might be possible in the care of people with mental illness. The best model to bring about that collaboration will need to be established by the needs of the extant mental health system in a country. Research is needed to provide an empirical basis for the feasibility of such collaboration, to clearly delineate its boundaries, and to test its effectiveness in bringing about improved patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)