ReviewGlobal mental health (Cambridge, England)2025
A scoping review to evaluate the efficacy of combining traditional healing and modern psychiatry in global mental healthcare.
Review in Global mental health (Cambridge, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the perceptions and practices of traditional hemorrhoid healers in the North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Beliefs, referrals, and mental healthcare pathways in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Exploring the convergence of faith healing practices with biopsychosocial interventions for mental health: A qualitative study among faith healers in Madhya Pradesh, India.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Erratum: A scoping review to evaluate the efficacy of combining traditional healing and modern psychiatry in global mental healthcare - CORRIGENDUM.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional faith healers (TFHs) are often consulted for serious mental illness (SMIs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Involvement of TFHs in mental healthcare could provide an opportunity for early identification and intervention to reduce the mental health treatment gap in LMICs. The aim of this study was to identify models of collaboration between TFHs and biomedical professionals, determine the outcomes of these collaborative models and identify any mechanisms (i.e., explanatory processes) or contextual moderators (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of these outcomes. A systematic scoping review of five electronic databases was performed from inception to March 2023 guided by consultation with local experts in Nigeria and Bangladesh. Data were extracted using a predefined data charting form and synthesised narratively. Six independent studies (eight articles) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Study locations included Ghana (n = 1), Nigeria (n = 1), Nigeria and Ghana (n = 1), India (n = 1), Hong Kong (n = 1) and South Africa (n = 1). We identified two main intervention typologies: (1) Western-based educational interventions for TFHs and (2) shared collaborative models between TFHs and biomedical professionals. Converging evidence from both typologies indicated that education for TFHs can help reduce harmful practices. Shared collaborative models led to significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms (in comparison to care as usual) and increases in referrals to biomedical care from TFHs. Proposed mechanisms underpinning outcomes included trust building and empowering TFHs by increasing awareness and knowledge of mental illness and human rights. Barriers to implementation were observed at the individual (e.g., suspicions of TFHs), relationship (e.g., reluctance of biomedical practitioners to equalise their status with TFHs) and service (e.g., lack of formal referral systems) levels. Research on collaborative models for mental healthcare is in its infancy. Preliminary findings are encouraging. To ensure effective collaboration, future programmes should incorporate active participation from community stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, faith healers) and target barriers to implementation on multiple levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.