Back

Exploring the possibility of collaboration for biomedical professionals and traditional healers: A Systematic Review

Ilozumba, O.; Koirala, S.; Meka, A.; Ossai, E.; Choudhury, S.; Wagner, R.; Lilford, R. J.

2023-11-22 public and global health
10.1101/2023.11.21.23298620 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionTraditional healers play a crucial role in healthcare provision, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Thus, there is a global interest in understanding the possibilities for collaboration between traditional healers and biomedical professionals. We believe there is the need for a comprehensive review on collaboration between traditional healers and biomedical professionals. Therefore, the aim of this review is to synthesise the literature on collaboration between traditional healers and biomedical professional including relevant interventions. MethodsA systematic review was conducted, utilizing a search strategy in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. Articles addressing collaboration between traditional healers and biomedical professionals were included, with a focus on attitudes, perceptions, interventions, and collaborative models. Data extraction followed a predefined template and the DAmour et al. framework was employed for analysis. ResultsThe review identified 29 relevant articles, predominantly conducted in Africa. The majority of studies (n=22) explored attitudes and perceptions, revealing a willingness among traditional healers to collaborate, while biomedical professionals exhibited mixed feelings. Seven studies focused on interventions aimed at fostering collaboration primarily focused on improving referral systems and educational initiatives. These studies found positive outcomes. Examining collaboration through the lens of DAmour et al.s framework revealed that trust was a significant barrier to collaboration. ConclusionThis review highlights a willingness to collaborate amongst of traditional healers and biomedical professionals and provides some successful examples of working across systems. It also reveals areas for attention in developing collaborative models of working.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.