| Title |
“My Heart Die in Me”: Idioms of Distress and the Development of a Screening Tool for Mental Suffering in Southeast Liberia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11013-018-9581-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katrin Fabian, Josiah Fannoh, George G. Washington, Wilfred B. Geninyan, Bethuel Nyachienga, Garmai Cyrus, Joyce N. Hallowanger, Jason Beste, Deepa Rao, Bradley H. Wagenaar |
| Abstract |
The integration of culturally salient idioms of distress into mental healthcare delivery is essential for effective screening, diagnosis, and treatment. This study systematically explored idioms, explanatory models, and conceptualizations in Maryland County, Liberia to develop a culturally-resonant screening tool for mental distress. We employed a sequential mixed-methods process of: (1) free-lists and semi-structured interviews (n = 20); patient chart reviews (n = 315); (2) pile-sort exercises, (n = 31); and (3) confirmatory focus group discussions (FGDs); (n = 3) from June to December 2017. Free-lists identified 64 idioms of distress, 36 of which were eliminated because they were poorly understood, stigmatizing, irrelevant, or redundant. The remaining 28 terms were used in pile-sort exercises to visualize the interrelatedness of idioms. Confirmatory FDGs occurred before and after the pile-sort exercise to explain findings. Four categories of idioms resulted, the most substantial of which included terms related to the heart and to the brain/mind. The final screening tool took into account 11 idioms and 6 physical symptoms extracted from patient chart reviews. This study provides the framework for culturally resonant mental healthcare by cataloguing language around mental distress and designing an emic screening tool for validation in a clinical setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,639,847
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#161
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,462
of 330,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.