Traditional and biomedical care pathways for mental well‐being in rural Nepal

Background There is increasing access to mental health services in biomedical settings (e.g., primary care and specialty clinics) in low- and middle-income countries. Traditional healing continues to be widely available and used in these settings as well. Our goal was to explore how the general public, traditional healers, and biomedical clinicians perceive the different types of services and make decisions regarding using one or both types of care. Methods We conducted in-depth interviews using a pilot tested semi-structured protocol around the subjects of belief, traditional healers, and seeking care. We conducted 124 interviews comprising 40 traditional healers, 79 general community members, and five physicians. We then performed qualitative analyses according to a grounded theoretical approach. Results A majority of the participants endorsed belief in both supernatural and medical causes of illness and sought care exclusively from healers, medical practitioners, and/or both. Our findings also revealed several pathways and barriers to care that were contingent upon patient-, traditional healer-, and medical practitioner-specific attitudes. Notably, a subset of community members duplicated care across multiple, equally-qualified medical providers before seeing a traditional healer and vice versa. In view of this, the majority of our participants stressed the importance of an efficient, medically plural society. Though participants desired a more collaborative model, no consistent proposal emerged on how to bridge traditional and biomedical practices. Instead, participants offered suggestions which comprised three broad categories: (1) biomedical training of traditional healers, (2) two-way referrals between traditional and biomedical providers, and (3) open-dialogue to foster mutual understanding among traditional and biomedical providers. Conclusion Participants offered several approaches to collaboration between medical providers and traditional healers, however if we compare it to the history of previous attempts, education and understanding between both fields may be the most viable option in low- and middle-income contexts such as Nepal. Further research should expand and investigate opportunities for collaborative learning and/or care across not only Nepal, but other countries with a history of traditional and complimentary medicine.