Explanatory models, illness, and treatment experiences of patients with psychosis using the services of traditional and faith healers in three African countries: Similarities and discontinuities.

As part of formative studies to design a program of collaborative care for persons with psychosis, we explored personal experience and lay attributions of illness as well as treatment among persons who had recently received care at traditional and faith healers' (TFHs) facilities in three cultural groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. A purposive sample of 85 individuals in Ibadan (Nigeria), Kumasi (Ghana), and Nairobi (Kenya) were interviewed. Data was inductively explored for themes and analysis was informed by the Framework Method. Across the three sites, illness experiences featured suffering and disability in different life domains. Predominant causal attribution was supernatural, even when biological causation was also acknowledged. Prayer and rituals, steeped in traditional spiritual beliefs, were prominent both in traditional faith healing settings as well as those of Christianity and Islam. Concurrent or consecutive use of TFHs and conventional medical services was common. TFHs provided services that appear to meet the therapeutic goals of their patients even when harmful treatment practices were employed. Cultural and linguistic differences did not obscure the commonality of a core set of beliefs and practices across these three groups. This similarity of core worldviews across diverse cultural settings means that a collaborative approach designed in one cultural group would, with adaptations to reflect differences in context, be applicable in another cultural group. Studies of patients' experience of illness and care are useful in designing and implementing collaborations between biomedical and TFH services as a way of scaling up services and improving the outcome of psychosis.

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.

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. FUNDING: US National Institute of Mental Health.

A survey of traditional and faith healers providing mental health care in three sub-Saharan African countries.

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.

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.

Collaboration Between Biomedical and Complementary and Alternative Care Providers: Barriers and Pathways.

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.