Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jul 24;20(7):e0328724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328724

Pathways to psychiatric care in Debre Berhan, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Kaleab Berhanu 1,*, Abayneh Birlie 2, Tizibt Fiseha 1, Yared Reta 3, Yohannes Gebreegziabhere 1
Editor: Alemayehu Molla Wollie4
PMCID: PMC12289035  PMID: 40705737

Abstract

Background

Pathways to care are the steps individuals went through before finally consulting formal psychiatric services. In developing countries, people with mental disorders (PWMDs) often first consult traditional or religious healers, which may delay treatment. Although studies from different part of Ethiopia confirm this trend, factors influencing indirect pathways remain insufficiently explored.

Objective

This study aimed to identify pathways to psychiatric care and factors associated with indirect pathways among PWMDs who received psychiatric care from Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia.

Methods

We enrolled 446 PWMDs and used the World Health Organization pathway to psychiatric care encounter form to elicit the pathways to psychiatric care. We conducted a multivariable binary logistic regression analysis to identify factors significantly associated with indirect pathways.

Result

Most of the PWMDs in the study (72.9%) went through indirect pathways. From sociodemographic characteristics, being in the age group between 41–50 years (AOR = 8.27; 95% CI (2.94, 23.18)) and over 50 years (AOR = 6.46; 95% CI (2.00, 20.82)), being female (AOR = 2.51; 95% CI (1.34, 4.73)), being primary school attendees (AOR = 3.00; 95% CI (1.20, 7.40)), being farmer (AOR = 13.00; 95% CI (3.11, 54.31)), and living in the same house with 4–8 people (AOR = 2.77; 95% CI (1.11, 6.95)) were found to be significantly associated with indirect pathways. While from clinical characteristics, a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (AOR = 2.66; 95% CI (1.10, 6.50)) and anxiety (AOR = 3.94; 95% CI (1.37, 11.34)), perceived stigma (AOR = 5.86; 95% CI (3.00, 11.45)), and facing problems during the help-seeking process (AOR = 0.44; 95% CI (0.21, 0.90)) were found to be significantly associated with indirect pathways.

Conclusion

In this population, PWMDs primarily used indirect pathways as their first point of contact. Several demographic and clinical factors were significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways. This study has implications for reducing delays by enhancing psychiatric service integration and establishing effective referral systems.

Introduction

Mental disorders are among the leading causes of global burdens of diseases. Globally, as of 2019, mental and addictive disorders affected more than one billion people worldwide, accounting for 7% of all burdens of diseases as measured in Disability Adjusted Life Years lost (DALYs) and 19% of all Years Lived with Disability [1]. It is estimated that, by the year 2030, mental disorders will account for 25.3% of the DALYs in low-income countries and 33.5% of all the DALYs in middle-income countries [2].

People with mental disorders follow different roots in receiving mental health care. Those events, processes, and intervals before medical treatment are called pathways to care [3]. Pathways usually begin at some identifiable point in the social structure, prompted by the culturally mediated help-seeking interaction between the distressed person and their significant others [4]. Pathways to psychiatric care could be direct or indirect. Direct care is a care provided by a psychiatrist or mental health professionals with no alternative sources. On the contrary, indirect care is a care provided by psychiatrists or mental health professionals after utilizing alternative sources.

In high-income countries, studies showed that a large number of people with mental disorders (PWMDs) receive mental health services directly from mental health professionals in psychiatry clinics or hospitals [57]. In contrast, African studies showed that more than half of participants choose traditional and religious healers as their first care providers [811].

One of the challenges of utilizing indirect pathways to care is delaying care. In low-income countries, most PWMDs had a longer duration of untreated illness [12,13]. Some of the reasons for this are prioritizing traditional and faith healers as primary sources of help [14], poor mental health infrastructure [15], lacking knowledge about mental health service availability [16], and considering mental illness as trivial [17]. Delay in receiving psychiatric care can lead to an increased level of distress or disability and an increased burden in early detection, identification, and intervention of mental disorders [18,19].

Different studies have attempted to find factors significantly associated with pathways to psychiatric care. A study conducted in Lisbon, Portugal, found that direct pathway was significantly associated with male gender, involuntary admission, referral by a family member, fewer people per room in the household, and lower probability of previous contact with mental health services [6]. In contrast, a study from Italy showed that people with schizophrenia showed a significantly lower rate of self-referral to psychiatric care (40.9%) compared to people with affective (73.57%), neurotic (87.85%), or eating disorders (81.25%) [5]. In England, Preston, a study showed that younger age and suicidal ideation were significantly associated with shorter pathways to direct psychiatric care. On the contrary, being older, being married, having somatic symptoms, and having anxiety and depression diagnoses were associated with longer pathways to direct psychiatry care [20]. Those studies showed that many demographic and clinical characteristics can influence decisions regarding direct or indirect paths to psychiatric care.

Studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) showed that several factors influenced the preference of individual choices of care. A study conducted on Igbo people east of the River Niger, Nigeria, found that higher education predicted preference for the biomedical model. In contrast, low education was associated with traditional and spiritual pathways. In terms of religion, protestants preferred the spiritual path more than Catholics [15]. Another qualitative study conducted in the Delta region of Nigeria found that the reason for choosing indirect pathways was influenced by religious beliefs about treatment (such illness can be cured only by the power of God), traditional beliefs about the causality of mental illness (handiwork of witches, spiritual attacks such as `black magic’ and `evil spirits’), poor knowledge of mental health service, and stigma and discrimination [16]. Additionally, a study conducted in Accra, Ghana, found that the odds of first seeking psychiatric care in a non-psychiatric health facility is almost two times higher for the self-employed and four times higher among public servants compared to those who are unemployed [21].

In Ethiopia, studies showed that the community had stigmatizing attitudes towards PWMDs, denied their rights, and prevented them from involving in various responsibilities [22,23]. This might influence pathways one might utilize during a time of crisis. Furthermore, traditional treatment methods were preferred more often for treating symptoms of mental disorders [24]. Additionally, various studies showed low treatment-seeking behavior from formal help sources for mental disorders, while they were preferred more often for physical diseases or symptoms [2327].

We found four studies about pathways to psychiatric care in Ethiopia [13,24,2830]. Those studies were conducted in different settings than the one we conducted. Most of the studies were conducted ten years ago, when psychiatric care was not widely available, and the numbers of mental health professionals were scarce. Besides, in the study setting (i.e., Debre Berhan), there are many holy water sites that are considered alternative sources of mental health care. Furthermore, previous studies focused on the factors associated with delay in receiving psychiatric care. However, this study focused on factors associated with indirect pathways to psychiatric care. Hence, this study can add to understanding of pathways to psychiatric care and factors associated with indirect pathways to psychiatric care in Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study setting, design, and period

This study was conducted after obtaining ethical approval from the ethical review committee of the School of Public Health Asrat Woldeyes Health Sciences campus, Debre Berhan University. The study was conducted at the Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (DBCSH) psychiatric clinic, located at the center of Debre Berhan town, central Ethiopia. The hospital provides psychiatric care for around five thousand people with different mental disorders each year. We employed an institutional-based cross-sectional study from 30th March to 30th May 2021.

Study population

We used a single population proportion formula to determine the minimum sample size required for this study. For the proportion of the problem, we used a previous study conducted at Mekelle, Northern Ethiopia (which reported that 74% of PWMDs utilized indirect pathways) [13]. We also used a 3% margin of error and 95% Confidence Interval (CI). This gave us a minimum initial sample size of 821 PWMDs. However, the total source population for this study is less than 10,000. As a result, we employed a finite population correction formula (i.e., n = ni/ (1 + ni/N)). Where “n” is the minimum sample size required for this study, “ni” is the initial minimum sample size calculated (i.e., 821), and “N is the total number of the source population (expected number of PWMDs receiving psychiatric care at DBCSH psychiatric clinic during the study period (i.e., 828 PWMDs) (obtained through personal communication of the head of the department of psychiatry at DBCSH). By adding 10% of the non-response rate, the final minimum sample size required for this study becomes 454 PWMDs.

We employed a consecutive sampling technique to enroll the required minimum sample size. We interviewed all PWMDs, whether new or on follow-up, who were receiving care at the psychiatry department of DBCSH and met the following eligibility criteria: PWMDs who can give consent, able to communicate, and are above 18. Before including participants in the study, we assessed the participant’s capacity to consent using a three-item ability to give consent questionnaire [31]. If the participant could provide consent, we got verbal consent and interviewed the patient.

Measures

Pathways to psychiatric care

To assess pathways to psychiatric care, we used the WHO pathways to psychiatric care encounter form [32]. The WHO pathway to psychiatric care encounter form is designed to determine pathways to care by documenting the participant’s journey. The form has four major pathway contacts, i.e., from where or from whom help is initially sought (the first pathway contact), followed by the second pathway contact, the third pathway contact, and finally, the fourth pathway contact. The WHO encounter form has 22 items to assess pathways that the patients have gone through, including information about the source of referral and duration of the delay to contact.

Fig 1 below shows the structure of the pathways to psychiatric care that the WHO encounter form recommends for developing countries. The form has been used in Ethiopia previously and reported to be acceptable and feasible [13,28,29].

Fig 1. Schematic presentation of pathways to care in developing countries, adopted from the World Health Organization encounter form.

Fig 1

Considering the recommendation of the WHO encounter form for developing countries, we have classified those participants who received psychiatric care directly from modern health care service providers (such as mental health professionals, general practitioners, primary health care providers, and others) for their current mental health disorder as those considered direct path. On the contrary, we classified those participants who received psychiatric care at the DBCSH psychiatric department after visiting alternative sources such as religious healers, traditional healers, herbalists, or other informal sources as those who utilized indirect paths.

Sociodemographic characteristics

We have used an eleven-item self-developed questionnaire focusing on sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, marital status, educational status, and occupational status.

Social-related factors

We adapted questionnaires used in previous studies to assess social-related factors thought to be significantly associated with pathways to psychiatric care. We evaluated the level of stigma and social support.

For stigma, we used the Jacoby 3-item stigma scale [33]. Jacoby 3-item stigma scale is used to assess perceived stigma among PWMDs, and each item is scored as “0” for “No” and “1” for “Yes” with a total score ranging from 0–3. If a respondent scores one and above, the participant has perceived stigma. The scale was used previously in Ethiopia to assess perceived stigma among PWMDs [34].

For social support, we used the Oslo 3-item social support scale to measure the number and strength of social support [35,36]. The first item of the Oslo 3-item scale scored from 1–4, and the last two scored from 1–5, with a total score ranging from 3–14. A higher score reflects good social support. The Oslo-3 items social support scale has been used in several studies in Ethiopia to measure the number and strength of social support of PWMDs, confirming its feasibility [37,38].

Clinical-related factors

We developed an eight-item questionnaire to assess clinical-related characteristics not in the WHO pathways to psychiatric care encounter form. We assessed clinical information such as current diagnosis, physical illness, who initiated the current visit, and history of psychiatric consultation.

For delay in psychiatric care, we used the time interval in weeks from onset to contact with psychiatric services. We used the median duration of 52.1 weeks as a reference point to declare treatment delay based on previous studies in Ethiopia [13,29].

For comorbid somatic symptoms commonly reported in PWMDs, we used items from self-report question-20 (SRQ-20) [39]. We include items from SRQ-20 about the presence of somatic symptoms such as headache, abdominal pain, and back pain, including suicidal ideation and attempts. Those somatic symptoms are commonly reported in PWMDs, and studies showed that they are significantly associated with the choice of pathways to psychiatric care [20]. Furthermore, we assessed substance use using self-developed four items about the frequency of use of substances common in the area (i.e., alcohol and khat (an amphitamine like substance)).

Mental health literacy

We used a ten-item questionnaire to assess the participants’ mental health literacy, which the WHO pathways to psychiatric care encounter form did not address. Those items were adapted from previous studies in Ethiopia [13,29]. The items assessed the perception of participants about the cause, treatment, and curability of mental illness.

Data management and analysis

We checked each questionnaire for completeness and appropriateness of response by the field supervisor each day. We coded and entered each questionnaire into EpiData version 3.1 software, and a double entry was conducted. The entered data were exported to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 software for quantitative analysis.

We used descriptive statistics (frequency, proportion, mean, and median) to summarize the data and evaluate the distribution of the responses. We checked multicollinearity using the Variance Infiltration Factor (VIF). We explored factors significantly associated with indirect pathways to psychiatric care using binary logistic regression analysis. First, we conducted a bivariable level binary logistic regression analysis and calculated crude odds ratio (COR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for all variables included in the bivariable model. Then, we performed a multivariable binary logistic regression analysis for a variable with a p-value less than 0.25 at the bivariable level analysis to determine the independent effects of each variable. The strength of the association between the dependent and the independent variables was described using an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% CI. We summarized the result using texts, tables, and graphs.

Result

Sociodemographic characteristics

We included 446 PWMDs with a 98.2% response rate. The reasons for the non-respondents were that three participants interrupted the interview, and five were unwilling to be interviewed. From the total sample, 51.8% (n = 231) were males, with a median age of 33 years (a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 76 years (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants.

Sociodemographic characteristics Frequency (n = 446)
Age in years, %
18-30 42.2
31-40 25.3
41-50 16.8
>50 15.7
Sex, % male 51.8
Marital status, %
Single 42.8
Married 41.5
Others* 15.7
Religion, % Orthodox 85.9
Ethnicity, %
Amhara 81.2
Oromo 15.9
Other* 2..9
Educational status, %
Unable to read and write 27.8
Primary school 24.9
Secondary school 21.1
College and above 26.2
Occupational status, %
Civil Servant 22.0
Unemployed 39.7
Merchant 11.0
Farmer 22.4
Other*** 4.9
Family size, %
Alone 10.5
1-3 37.9
4-8 47.1
>8 4.5
Residency, % Urban 72.4

*widowed, divorced, and separated bed.

** Tigrie, Gurage, and Wolayta.

*** daily laborer, shoeshine, prisoners.

Social-related factors

It was observed that 59% (n = 263) of the participants had low social support, 30% (n = 134) had moderate social support, and 11% (n = 49) had strong social support. Additionally, almost half (46%, n = 206) of the participants reported experiencing perceived stigma.

Clinical related characteristics

Nearly half (49.1%, (n = 219)) of the study participants reported a lifetime history of suicidal ideation, and a little over one-third (31.8% (n = 142)) reported a lifetime history of suicidal attempts. Out of the total participants, 48.4% (n = 215) responded that they have a physical illness; of them, 73.0% (n = 157) have only one physical symptom, and 26.0% (n = 56) have more than one physical illness symptom. The prominent physical illness symptoms reported were weakness or weight loss 26.4% (n = 74), followed by headache (20.3% (n = 57)) (Table 2).

Table 2. Clinical-related characteristics of the study participants.

Variables Response Frequency (n = 446)
Suicidal ideation, ever % yes 50.9
Suicidal attempt, ever % yes 31.8
Physical illness, % yes 48.4
Number of physical illness symptoms Have one symptom 73.7
Have more than one symptom 26.3
Type of physical illness Headache, % Yes 26.5
weakness and weight loss, % No 66.0
Fever, % No 93.5
Cough and chest pain, % No 91.6
Diabetic mellitus, % No 88.8
HIV/AIDS, % No 94.4
Hypertension, % No 91.2
Gastritis, % No 84.2
Other*, % No 93.5
Visit psychiatry care service before, ever % yes 33.0
Way of visiting mental health facility, % Voluntarily 54.7
Forced by others 45.3
Guilty feeling, % yes 36.8
Diagnosis, % Major depressive disorder 41.7
Bipolar 13.7
Psychosis 36.8
Anxiety 7.8
Lifetime substance use, % yes 25.3
Alcohol, % yes 70.8
Khat, % yes 59.3
Tobacco, % yes 43.4
Current substances use, % yes 87.6
Alcohol, % Never 29.3
Two to three times a month 5.1
Weekly 14.1
3-4 times a week 28.3
Daily or Almost Daily (over four times a week) 23.2
Khat, % Never 36.4
Weekly 12.1
3-4 times a week 23.2
Daily or Almost Daily (over four times a week) 28.3
Tobacco, % Never 52.5
Weekly 14.1
3-4 times a week 15.2
Daily or Almost Daily (over four times a week) 18.2

* Abdominal pain, backache, toothache, and skin disease.

** I don’t know.

Mental health literacy-related characteristics

We found that 29.1% (n = 130) of the study participants were delayed in receiving care from modern psychiatric facilities. The top three reasons reported for the delay were not believing in modern treatment (29.6% (n = 88)), not knowing where to seek help (23.6% (n = 70)), and staying in religious healer (holy water) longer (9.1% (n = 27)).

The participants perceived that stress (45.5%, (n = 242)), spiritual possession (18.4%, (n = 98)), and God’s will (14.1%, (n = 75)) are the leading causes of mental illness. Almost all (96.0%) of the study participants believed that mental illness is curable. About three-fourths (71.7%, (n = 320)) of the study participants believed modern treatment could treat mental illness.

Regarding the study participants’ knowledge about the place where mental health is delivered, more than half of the study participants (59.5%, (n = 266)) responded that they know where the services are provided. About two-thirds (59.6%, (n = 319)) responded that their family knows the symptoms of mental illness (Table 3).

Table 3. Mental health literacy of the study participants.

Variables Response Frequency (n = 446)
Delay in seeking treatment, % > 52 weeks 29.1
Reason for delay Distance of health care facility, % no 94.8
Financial difficulties, % no 95.5
Did not know where to seek help, % no 84.3
Lack of availability of mental health facility, % no 98.0
Not believed in modern treatment, % no 80.3
Not delayed arrived on early, % no 59.9
Because I went to holy water, % no 94.0
Other*, % no 86.5
Problem faced during the help-seeking process, % Family and friends do not understand the illness 48.0
Long waiting times and shortage of medication 7.6
Did not face any problem 44.4
Cause of mental illness I don’t know, % no 86.1
God’s will, % no 80.5
Spiritual possession, % no 74.5
Evil eye, % no 99.0
Family history, % no 99.0
Because I am a sinner, % no 98.7
Stress, % no 37.0
Magic, % no 96.2
Others**, % no 94.4
Kind of people mental illness affects Angry and stressed, % yes 49.3
People who use drugs, % yes 43.0
People with life crisis, % yes 49.6
Those who think a lot, % yes 25.8
Others***, % no 94.4
Mental illness is not curable, % no 96.0
Know where mental health service is provided, % yes 59.6
The appropriate place to receive mental health care service Modern medicine, % yes 71.7
Traditional treatment, % no 98.0
Religious treatment, % yes 55.2
Understanding the severity of mental illness Very Severe 65.5
Less Severe 28.5
Not Severe 6.1
Family members know the symptoms of mental disorder, % yes 28.5

* I don’t know, it will cure by itself, fear of medication side effects and searching for solution by myself** anger, hormonal change, sorrow, and accident.

*** Anger, being alone.

Pathways to psychiatric care

Only 27.1% (n= (121) of the study participants accessed psychiatric care directly from mental health professionals or other health care providers. The rest, 72.9% with 95% CI: 68.8% – 76.7%, passed through indirect pathways to seek help for their current mental illness (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Diagrammatic presentation of pathways to psychiatric care in Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital Department of Psychiatry, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia, 2021.

Fig 2

About one-fifth of the study participants (19.1%, (n = 85)) sought help directly from the psychiatry care service. Most participants (63.4%, (n = 283)) initially chose religious healers as their first point of contact. In their subsequent pathways, 55.8% (n = 241), 22.2% (n = 99), and 2.9% (n = 13) study participants utilized psychiatry care services in their second, third, and fourth pathways, respectively (Fig 2).

In all four pathways, in the majority of the study participants, families/relatives initiated the need to seek care for their current mental illness. In the first pathway, the main reason that led participants to seek help was stress (43%, (n = 193)), whereas, in the remaining pathways, the main reason/symptom that led them to seek help was the worsening of their illness (Table 4).

Table 4. Symptoms and persons that initiated seeking the chosen source of help at different pathways to psychiatric care.

Variables Response First pathway Second pathway Third pathway Fourth pathway
Frequency (n = 446) (%) Frequency (n = 361) (%) Frequency (n = 112) (%) Frequency (n = 13) (%)
Who initiates the path The patient 112 (25.1) 48 (13.3) 6 (5.4) 4(30.8)
Family/Relatives 276 (61.9) 280 (77.5) 63 (56.3) 7(53.8)
Friends 34 (7.6) 12 (3.3)
Neighbors 12 (2.7) 11 (3.0) 6 (5.3)
Health professionals 8 (2.2) 37 (33) 2(15.4)
Other patients 10 (2.2)
Other* 2 (0.4) 2 (0.8)
Symptoms caused a decision to seek care Aggressive behavior/harming other 104 (23.3) 13 (3.6) 7 (6.3)
Suicidal ideation/attempt 83 (18.6) 12 (3.3) 10 (8.9)
Functional impaired 17 (3.8) 9 (2.5) 6 (5.3)
Worsening of symptoms 10 (2.2) 311 (86.2) 70 (62.5) 13 (100)
Stress 193 (43.3)
Comorbid medical illness 8 (1.8) 12 (3.3) 4 (3.6)
Unable to sleep 13 (2.9)
Other** 18 (4.0) 4 (1.1) 15 (13.4)

* For Police.

**For mute, talkativeness, and hearing voices.

Factors associated with indirect pathways to psychiatric care

On multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, we found different sociodemographic, social, and clinical characteristics to be significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric care (Table 5)

Table 5. Bivariate and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis of factors associated with indirect pathways for care.

Variables Responses Pathways COR (CI) AOR (CI)
Direct Indirect
Age in year 18-30 75 113 R R
31-40 29 84 1.92 (1.15, 3.21) 1.62 (0.74, 3.52)
41-50 9 66 4.87 (2.29, 10.36) 8.27 (2.94, 23.18)
>50 8 62 4.87 (1.98, 11.99) 6.46 (2.00, 20.82)
Sex Male 75 156 R R
Female 46 169 1.77 (1.15, 2.71) 2.51 (1.34, 4.73)
Educational status Unable to read and write 15 109 3.77 (1.95, 7.31) 0.89 (0.31, 2.49)
Primary school 21 90 2.23 (1.21, 4.10) 3.00 (1.20, 7.40)
Secondary school 45 49 0.57 (0.32, 0.99) 0. 50 (0.23, 1.10)
College and above 40 77 R R
Occupational status Civil Servant 35 63 R R
Unemployed 60 117 1.01 (0.65, 1.82) 0.79 (0.37, 1.67)
Merchant 13 36 1.54 (0.72, 3.28) 1.50 (0.52, 4.31)
Farmer 8 92 10.56 (3.92, 28.40) 13.00 (3.11, 54.31)
Other** 8 14 0.97 (0.37, 2.54) 2.28 (0.53, 9.83)
Family size Alone 23 24 R R
1-3 46 123 2.56 (1.39, 4.98) 3.21 (1.23, 8.35)
4-8 50 160 3.07 (1.59, 5.90) 2.77 (1.11, 6.95)
>8 6 14 2.24 (1.80, 41.41) 2.53 (0.27, 23.98)
Stigma Not stigmatized 87 154 R R
Stigmatized 34 171 2.841 (1.81, 4.47) 5.86 (3.00, 11.45)
Diagnosis MDD 56 130 R R
Bipolar 17 44 1.11 (0.59, 2.12) 2.66 (1.10, 6.50)
Schizophrenia 36 128 1.33 (0.76, 2.32) 1.43 (0.72, 2.84)
Anxiety 12 23 0.83(.38, 1.77) 3.94 (1.37, 11.34)
Problems encountered during help-seeking Families and friends do not understand the illness 45 169 R R
Long waiting times and shortage of medicine 7 27 1.03 (0.67, 5.96) 4.27 (0.92, 19.77)
Didn’t face any problem 72 126 0.47 (0.30, 0.72) 0.44 (0.21, 0.90)

* Divorced, widowed, and separated bed.

** daily laborer, shoeshine, prisoners,

*** Police, I do not know.

Bold is for variables with p < 0.05.

P value of Hosmer Lemeshow = 0.062.

From sociodemographic characteristics, age, sex, educational status, occupational status, and family size were significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways. We found that the odds of those who were in the age group of 41–50 years were eight times higher in utilizing indirect pathways, while it is six times higher among those who are over 50 years compared to those who are in the age group between 18–30 years (AOR = 8.27; 95% CI (2.94, 23.18) and AOR = 6.46; 95% CI (2.00, 20.82), respectively).

In terms of sex, we found that the odds of being female in using indirect pathways were two times higher compared to males (AOR = 2.51; 95% CI (1.34, 4.73)). The educational status of the participants was also found to be significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric service, where the odds of those who attended primary school were three times higher in utilizing indirect pathways to receive care for their current mental health problem compared with those who attended college and above (AOR = 3.00; 95% CI (1.20, 7.40)).

Occupational status was also significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways, on which farmers were found to have higher odds of using indirect pathways to psychiatric care compared to civil servants (AOR = 13.00; 95% CI (3.11, 54.31)). The last sociodemographic variable associated with using indirect pathways was family size. We found that the odds of those who are living with 1–3 people and 4–8 people in the same house to utilize indirect pathways to psychiatric care were three times higher compared to those who were living alone (AOR = 3.21; 95% CI (1.23, 8.35) and (AOR = 2.77; 95% CI (1.11, 6.95), respectively).

Among the social factors, perceived stigma was significantly associated with using indirect pathways. We found that the odds of those who reported perceived stigma in using indirect pathways to psychiatric care were six times higher compared with those who reported no perceived stigma (AOR = 5.86; 95% CI: (3.00, 11.45)).

Among the clinical-related factors, the diagnosis given by clinicians was reported to have a statistically significant association with utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric care. The odds of those PWMDs diagnosed with bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder were three and four times higher in using indirect pathways compared to those who were diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), respectively (AOR = 2.66; 95% CI (1.10, 6.50), (AOR = 3.94; 95% CI (1.37, 11.34), respectively).

Finally, facing problems during the help-seeking process was found to be significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric care. The odds of using indirect pathways were 66% less likely among those who did not face problems during the help-seeking process compared to those who reported families and friends do not understand their mental illness as a reason for not seeking help (AOR = 0.44; 95% CI (0.21, 0.90)).

Discussion

Though different studies have attempted to look for factors significantly associated with delay in psychiatric care in Ethiopia, evidence is scarce about the factors significantly associated with indirect pathways to psychiatric care in Ethiopia. Hence, this study aimed to understand pathways to psychiatric care in PWMDs receiving care in the psychiatric department of DBCSH.

In this study, only about a quarter (27%) of PWMDs received psychiatric care directly from modern psychiatric services. In comparison, a high proportion of PWMDs (73%) utilized indirect pathways to psychiatric care. From all the alternative sources, religious healers were utilized most often as the first point of contact for different kinds of mental illness. We also found that the main reason for utilizing the modern psychiatric service on the first visit was stress. However, as the number of pathways increases, the reason for using modern psychiatric services is the worsening of illness (85.2%, 63.1%, and 100% in the second, third, and fourth pathways, respectively). We found that sociodemographic characteristics (such as being older, being female, being less educated, being a farmer, and living with more than one person in a house), perceived stigma, diagnosis (being diagnosed as a case of bipolar and anxiety disorder), and problems faced during the help-seeking process (reporting family members as a problem on the help-seeking behavior) to be significantly associated with indirect pathways to psychiatric care.

We found that about three-fourths of the participants utilized indirect pathways. Most opted for religious healers, followed by traditional healers and other healthcare providers (such as nurses or general practitioners). Only one-fifth of the study participants directly approached psychiatric services as their primary source of care for their existing mental health issues. This finding is consistent with the finding of the previous study conducted in Mekelle (northern Ethiopia) [13] and Jimma (southwestern Ethiopia) [29], which reported that 74.0% and 65.0% of the study participants utilized indirect pathways as their first point of contact, respectively. The possible explanation for these higher proportions of indirect pathways is probably because most PWMDs prefer holy water for getting a cure for their illness. This was also reported in previous studies in Ethiopia [40].

Our finding is higher compared to studies conducted in Butajira (southern Ethiopia) and Addis Ababa (central Ethiopia), which reported that 59% of the study participants utilized indirect pathways [24,28]. The possible reason for the discrepancy might be, in the Butajira study, one the study used key informants as their source of information while we interviewed PWMDs; two, there are a lot of mental health-related projects in the area, for a longer time, which can promote mental health service utilization. In contrast, the study from Addis Ababa was conducted in the largest city in the country, which has better access to modern mental health services than our study setting. Moreover, within our study setting, there are several well-known holy water sites where alternative sources of healing are readily available; this may encourage PWMDs to seek alternative sources as their first point of contact.

The current study indicates that PWMDs often opt for an indirect pathway to psychiatric services, paralleling the patterns observed in LMICs, where the prevalence of such indirect routes is reported to be between 40% and 78.0% [9,12,15,16,4143]. Our findings indicate that PWMDs have a greater likelihood of obtaining psychiatric care through indirect means, which contrasts with the lower rates reported in other studies (12–53%) [17,21,44,45]. This difference may be attributed to the well-established healthcare systems in place, which prioritize specialized care for individuals with mental health issues.

Despite a lot of efforts by the Ethiopian Ministry of Health to integrate mental health into routine service, a significant amount of PWMDs seek help primarily from alternative sources. This might be alarming for the ministry since this may lead to delays in getting help, which can lead to delays in seeking care. The finding has implications for the delay in receiving care; in this study, one-third of the participants had a delay in care. Previous studies showed that delay in psychiatric care is associated with worse clinical outcomes [19].

In this study, old age is significantly associated with choosing indirect pathways. This might be because younger people might be better educated and know where modern care is provided. In comparison, older people may be less willing to receive care from mental health services because they are more likely to hold a belief in self-reliance than relying on others to seek help [46]. This finding aligned with studies conducted in England and India, where younger people chose direct pathways [14,20].

Having a lower educational status was also found to be significantly associated with using indirect pathways. This showed that educational status might have a say in the decision to seek help, and the decision might be biased on the knowledge of the cause and treatment of mental illnesses, which will be directly influenced by educational status. Furthermore, in less educated groups, decisions might be made by families, where, in most cases, they will be at the same level of understanding about the causes and treatment of mental illness. In this study, we witnessed that the majority of the participants have a traditional way of explaining the cause and treatment of mental illness, unlike the biomedical model of explanation (which might require higher educational status to understand and utilize fully) [15]. In addition, knowing where modern service is provided might be more accessible for well-educated participants since they can get information from different reading and listening sources. The association between less education and utilizing indirect pathways agreed with a study conducted in Jaipur, India [14].

In this study, being a farmer was significantly associated with higher odds of utilizing indirect pathways than being a civil servant. This might be because most of the farmers in this study have low educational status (unable to read-write) (67%) and come from rural areas (78%) where religious healers (holy water) were widely available. Similarly, a study conducted in Accra, Ghana, reported that self-employed and public servants have higher odds of utilizing a direct path [21].

We also found that being female holds higher odds of utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric care. This result was consistent with a study conducted in Lisbon, Portugal, which found that being male was associated with higher odds of utilizing direct psychiatric care [6]. A possible explanation might be that women are expected to be shy when expressing their feelings, while men are often more aggressive. The other reason might be associated with decision-making and knowing where the service is provided.

In addition to the aforementioned sociodemographic characteristics, we also found that larger family size is significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric care. The possible reason might be when more than one person is involved in the decision to seek care PWMDs might be forced to visit indirect pathways. This result is consistent with a study conducted in Lisbon, Portugal, which found that living with fewer people in the same household was significantly associated with receiving direct psychiatric care [6].

The other factor found to be significantly associated with higher odds of utilizing indirect pathways to psychiatric care was having perceived stigma. This might result from anticipated negative labeling and judgmental reactions from others if one seeks help [47]. This finding was in line with the study conducted in the Delta region of Nigeria [48]. The finding showed that stigma is an additional burden for the health care system by leading participants not to seek help from formal sources directly.

In addition to the factors reported above, the psychiatric diagnosis was also found to be significantly associated with utilizing indirect pathways. We found significantly higher odds of utilizing indirect pathways in PWMDs who are diagnosed with bipolar and generalized anxiety disorders. Partly, it could be because of the presentation of the disorders, where people with bipolar disorder are considered possessed by an evil spirit and need deliverance from spiritual healers. Similar findings were reported in a study conducted in England [44] and Singapore [41].

Finally, we found that those participants who faced problems during the help-seeking process tended to utilize indirect pathways. Stigma, the influence of family members, and lack of access are some of the hindering factors reported in this study, and perhaps this might need to be explored in more detail. We strongly recommend addressing problems in the help-seeking process to improve direct pathways to psychiatric care.

This study is one of the pioneering investigations into the factors influencing the use of indirect pathways to psychiatric care in Ethiopia. Previous research primarily focused on identifying delays in seeking help rather than analyzing the specific patterns of pathways to psychiatric care. Utilizing standardized tools such as the WHO encounter form, Oslo social support, and the 3-item Jacoby scale enabled a comprehensive assessment of various variables that influenced pathways to psychiatric care. However, readers need to acknowledge certain limitations when interpreting the findings. The hospital-based nature of the study may not fully represent the pathways to psychiatric care at the community level for individuals who have not accessed psychiatric care yet. Additionally, potential recall bias could arise due to the nature of mental disorders and the duration of illness among participants. Moreover, data collection through face-to-face interviews by health professionals may introduce social desirability bias.

This study has implications for healthcare providers, caregivers of PWMDs, PWMDs, researchers, and policymakers. For family members, the study has implications for maintaining close relationships with PWMDs within the family in addressing feelings of self-stigma and promoting direct pathways. Future researchers can use this study as a benchmark to design a community-based study to understand the pathways fully. For policymakers, considering policies focused on collaboration between mental health professionals and religious organizations can be beneficial in referring individuals with PWMDs to modern psychiatric services while also incorporating religious therapy. Policymakers and administrators could play their role by enhancing psychiatric services, expanding access at the community level, and integrating modern psychiatric care with religious and traditional healing practices. Hence, they will be able to reduce treatment delays and facilitate easier access to modern mental health services for PWMDs, which in turn improves clinical and functional outcomes.

Supporting information

S1. Data Sav.

(SAV)

pone.0328724.s001.sav (113.9KB, sav)

Acknowledgments

We are pleased to extend our heartfelt gratitude to Debre Berhan University Asrat Woldeyes Health Sciences campus for supporting us in conducting this research. Our special thanks go to the Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital Department of Psychiatry staff, who were very supportive and genuine in providing the necessary information and assistance during the data collection. Finally, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to all study participants.

List of abbreviations:

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

DALYs

Disability Adjusted Life Year lost

DBCSH

Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital

LMICs

Low-and Middle-Income Countries

MDD

Major Depressive Disorder

PWMDs

People with Mental Disorders

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Rehm J, Shield KD. Global Burden of Disease and the Impact of Mental and Addictive Disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21(2):10. doi: 10.1007/s11920-019-0997-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Organization WH. Global burden of mental disorders and the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response from health and social sectors at the country level. Report by the Secretariat. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Scott SE, Walter FM, Webster A, Sutton S, Emery J. The model of pathways to treatment: conceptualization and integration with existing theory. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(1):45–65. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02077.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rogler LH, Cortes DE. Help-seeking pathways: a unifying concept in mental health care. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(4):554–61. doi: 10.1176/ajp.150.4.554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Volpe U, Fiorillo A, Luciano M, Del Vecchio V, Palumbo C, Calò S, et al. Pathways to mental health care in Italy: results from a multicenter study. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014;60(5):508–13. doi: 10.1177/0020764013501648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ramos J, Santos J, Jorge S, Maia T, Cardoso G. Pathways to Care for First Psychiatric Admissions in Lisbon. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66:888–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ehmann TS, Tee KA, MacEwan GW, Dalzell KL, Hanson LA, Smith GN, et al. Treatment delay and pathways to care in early psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2014;8(3):240–6. doi: 10.1111/eip.12051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Abiodun O. Pathways to mental health care in Nigeria. Psychiatric Services. 1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Adeosun II, Adegbohun AA, Adewumi TA, Jeje OO. The Pathways to the First Contact with Mental Health Services among Patients with Schizophrenia in Lagos, Nigeria. Schizophr Res Treatment. 2013;2013:769161. doi: 10.1155/2013/769161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Burns JK, Tomita A. Traditional and religious healers in the pathway to care for people with mental disorders in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015;50(6):867–77. doi: 10.1007/s00127-014-0989-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bifftu BB, Dachew BA, Tiruneh BT, Alemu WG. First choice of treatment place in the pathways to epileptic care at the outpatient department of University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: Cross-sectional institutional based study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181310. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kurihara T, Kato M, Reverger R, Tirta IGR. Pathway to psychiatric care in Bali. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006;60(2):204–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01487.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Teshager S, Kerebih H, Hailesilassie H, Abera M. Pathways to psychiatric care and factors associated with delayed help-seeking among patients with mental illness in Northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e033928. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jain N, Gautam S, Jain S, Gupta ID, Batra L, Sharma R, et al. Pathway to psychiatric care in a tertiary mental health facility in Jaipur, India. Asian J Psychiatr. 2012;5(4):303–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2012.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ikwuka U, Galbraith N, Manktelow K, Chen-Wilson J, Oyebode F, Muomah RC, et al. Pathways to mental healthcare in south-eastern Nigeria. Transcult Psychiatry. 2016;53(5):574–94. doi: 10.1177/1363461516660903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jack-Ide I, Makoro B, Azibiri B. Pathways to mental health care services in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. J Res Nurs Midwifery. 2013;2:22–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nuri NN, Sarker M, Ahmed HU, Hossain MD, Beiersmann C, Jahn A. Pathways to care of patients with mental health problems in Bangladesh. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2018;12:39. doi: 10.1186/s13033-018-0218-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ghio L, Gotelli S, Marcenaro M, Amore M, Natta W. Duration of untreated illness and outcomes in unipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2014;152–154:45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Farooq S, Large M, Nielssen O, Waheed W. The relationship between the duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in low-and-middle income countries: a systematic review and meta analysis. Schizophr Res. 2009;109(1–3):15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2009.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Harrison J, Kisely SR, Jones JA, Blake I, Creed FH. Access to psychiatric care; the results of the Pathways to Care study in Preston. J Public Health Med. 1997;19:69–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ibrahim A, Hor S, Bahar OS, Dwomoh D, McKay MM. Pathways to psychiatric care for mental disorders: a retrospective study of patients seeking mental health services at a public psychiatric facility in Ghana. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2016;10:63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Reta Y, Tesfaye M, Girma E, Dehning S, Adorjan K. Public Stigma against People with Mental Illness in Jimma Town, Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0163103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tesfaye Y, Agenagnew L, Terefe Tucho G, Anand S, Birhanu Z, Ahmed G, et al. Attitude and help-seeking behavior of the community towards mental health problems. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alem A, Jacobsson L, Araya M, Kebede D, Kullgren G. How are mental disorders seen and where is help sought in a rural Ethiopian community? A key informant study in Butajira, Ethiopia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1999;397:40–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1999.tb10693.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Molla A, Mekuriaw B, Habtamu E, Mareg M. Treatment-Seeking Behavior Towards Epilepsy Among Rural Residents in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:433–9. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S240542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Menberu M, Mekonen T, Azale T, Ayano G, Yimer S, Getnet A, et al. Health care seeking behavior for depression in Northeast Ethiopia: depression is not considered as illness by more than half of the participants. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2018;17:34. doi: 10.1186/s12991-018-0205-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Abera M, Robbins JM, Tesfaye M. Parents’ perception of child and adolescent mental health problems and their choice of treatment option in southwest Ethiopia. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2015;9:40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bekele YY, Flisher AJ, Alem A, Baheretebeb Y. Pathways to psychiatric care in Ethiopia. Psychol Med. 2009;39:475–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Girma E, Tesfaye M. Patterns of treatment seeking behavior for mental illnesses in Southwest Ethiopia: a hospital based study. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:138. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Health FMo ETHIOPIA NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STRATEGY-2012-1.pdf.
  • 31.Palmer BW, Dunn LB, Appelbaum PS, Mudaliar S, Thal L, Henry R, et al. Assessment of capacity to consent to research among older persons with schizophrenia, Alzheimer disease, or diabetes mellitus: comparison of a 3-item questionnaire with a comprehensive standardized capacity instrument. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(7):726–33. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.7.726 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.WHO. WHO pathways to care; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jacoby A. Felt versus enacted stigma: A concept revisited: Evidence from a study of people with epilepsy in remission. Social science & medicine. 1994;38:269–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shumye S, Belayneh Z, Mengistu N. Health related quality of life and its correlates among people with depression attending outpatient department in Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1233-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kocalevent R-D, Berg L, Beutel ME, Hinz A, Zenger M, Härter M, et al. Social support in the general population: standardization of the Oslo social support scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018;6(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s40359-018-0249-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shumaker SC, Frazier SK, Moser DK, Chung ML. Psychometric Properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in Patients With Heart Failure. J Nurs Meas. 2017;25(1):90–102. doi: 10.1891/1061-3749.25.1.90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Engidaw NA, Wubetu AD, Basha EA. Prevalence of depression and its associated factors among patients with diabetes mellitus at Tirunesh-Beijing general hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8360-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Belete A, Negash A, Birkie M. Help-seeking behaviour for depressive disorders among adult cardiovascular outpatient cardiac clinic Jimma University Teaching Hospital, Jimma, South-West Ethiopia: crosssectional study. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019;13:7. doi: 10.1186/s13033-019-0262-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Beusenberg M, Orley JH, World Health Organization. Division of Mental H. A User’s Guide to the Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ) compiled by M. Beusenberg and J. Orley. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Baheretibeb Y, Wondimagegn D, Law S. Holy water and biomedicine: a descriptive study of active collaboration between religious traditional healers and biomedical psychiatry in Ethiopia. BJPsych Open. 2021;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jeyagurunathan A, Abdin E, Shafie S, Wang P, Chang S, Ong HL, et al. Pathways to care among psychiatric outpatients in a tertiary mental health institution in Singapore. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2018;64(6):554–62. doi: 10.1177/0020764018784632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lasebikan VO, Owoaje ET, Asuzu MC. Social network as a determinant of pathway to mental health service utilization among psychotic patients in a Nigerian hospital. Ann Afr Med. 2012;11(1):12–20. doi: 10.4103/1596-3519.91010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Odinka PC, Oche M, Ndukuba AC, Muomah RC, Osika MU, Bakare MO, et al. The socio-demographic characteristics and patterns of help-seeking among patients with schizophrenia in south-east Nigeria. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(1):180–91. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2014.0055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hashimoto N, Fujisawa D, Giasuddin NA, Kenchaiah BK, Narmandakh A. Pathways to mental health care in Bangladesh, India, Japan, Mongolia, and Nepal. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27:Np1847-1857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Khiari H, Ouali U, Zgueb Y, Mrabet A, Nacef F. Pathways to mental health care for patients with severe mental illness in Tunisia. Pan Afr Med J. 2019;34:118. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2019.34.118.19661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wetherell JL, Kaplan RM, Kallenberg G, Dresselhaus TR, Sieber WJ, Lang AJ. Mental health treatment preferences of older and younger primary care patients. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2004;34(3):219–33. doi: 10.2190/QA7Y-TX1Y-WM45-KGV7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gronholm PC, Thornicroft G, Laurens KR, Evans-Lacko S. Mental health-related stigma and pathways to care for people at risk of psychotic disorders or experiencing first-episode psychosis: a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2017;47(11):1867–79. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jack-Ide IO, Uys L. Barriers to mental health services utilization in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria: service users’ perspectives. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;14:159. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2013.14.159.1970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Dear Dr. Kebede,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please describe in your methods section how capacity to provide consent was determined for the participants in this study. Please also state whether your ethics committee or IRB approved this consent procedure. If you did not assess capacity to consent please briefly outline why this was not necessary in this case.

Additionally, in the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Additional Editor Comments :

Although the manuscript is limited in scope, the authors produced important findings on the research topic.

The manuscript could be improved if authors addressed reviewers’ comments. In addition, please consider the following issues:

  1. Be consistent with terms like informal, indirect, etc.

  2. Please include additional sentences that show the gap of the study in the introduction part abstract.

  3. Please include additional information like sampling techniques, response rate, etc in the methodology part of the abstract.

  4. Currently the focus of mental health treatment is to consider primary care, including traditional healing, to reduce the treatment gap, particularly for low-income countries, but you are recommending the indicated pathway as a negative; please acknowledge such approaches.

  5. Please proofread the manuscript for English language and grammar.

  6. Please be specific with your study populations (which type of patients) since there are different types of people with symptoms of mental illness.

  7. Was the tool validated within a similar population?

  8. Please interpret your result in terms of other studies, policies, and guidelines.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

The study you undertake provides valuable insights into the factors influencing pathways to psychiatric care in Debre Berhan, Ethiopia. The authors' comprehensive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics, perceived stigma, diagnosis, and help-seeking behaviors contributes to a better understanding of the challenges faced by individuals with mental health disorders in accessing appropriate care. Below are some concerns you need to go through and react

Introduction part

Concerns

� Line 102-103: You mention that little is known about pathways to psychiatric care in Ethiopia, especially indirect pathways. Could you elaborate on the research gap and why this is a significant area to investigate?

� Line 111-112: How might the availability of holy water places influence the decision-making process of PWMDs in Ethiopia? Are there any specific beliefs or practices associated with these places that might impact their choice of care?

� Line 116-118: How did the WHO pathways to psychiatric care encounter form contribute to the data collection and analysis process? What specific insights did it provide that might not have been possible with other methods?

Method part

Concerns

� Line 134: Could you elaborate on the reason for using a 3% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval? Were these values chosen based on specific guidelines or conventions in your field?

� Line 138: How was the expected number of PWMDs receiving psychiatric care at DBCSH during the study period obtained? Was this based on previous data, projections, or other sources?

� Line 140: Please provide more details about the non-response rate used for the final sample size calculation. How was this rate determined?

� Line 142: Can you explain why consecutive sampling was the choice for your research, considering its non-probability characteristics?

� Line 145: Could you elaborate on the three-item questionnaire used to assess participant capacity to consent? What were the specific questions asked?

� Line 147: Given the potential for bias in verbal consent, consider discussing any measures taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the consent process.

� Line 159: Given that the WHO encounter form has been used in previous studies in Ethiopia, what are the specific challenges or limitations that you anticipate encountering in using this tool in your study?

� Line 174: Could you provide more details about the specific previous studies that you adapted the questionnaires from for assessing social-related factors? How did you ensure that the adapted questionnaires were appropriate and valid for your study population?

� Line 187: Why did you choose to develop your questionnaire to assess clinical-related characteristics, rather than using existing validated instruments? What were the specific factors that you wanted to measure that were not covered by the WHO encounter form?

� Line 193: Could you provide more information about the specific items from the SRQ-20 that you included in your study? How did you ensure that these items were relevant and appropriate for assessing comorbid somatic symptoms in your population?

� Line 200: What specific mental health conditions were included in the assessment of mental health literacy?

� Line 202: Can you provide more details about the WHO pathways to psychiatric care encounter form and how it differs from the ten-item questionnaire?

� Line 203: Please elaborate on the specific studies from Ethiopia (references 13 and 29) that were used to adapt the ten-item questionnaire. What were the key similarities and differences between those studies and your research?

� Line 204: How did you ensure the ten-item questionnaire adequately assessed participants' perceptions of the cause, treatment, and curability of mental illness? Were there any pilot testing or validation procedures conducted?

Result part

� In lines 222-225, you report a high response rate of 98.2% among PWMDs. Could you please provide more details about the characteristics of the non-respondents (e.g., age, gender, disability type) to assess potential biases in your sample? Additionally, could you elaborate on the reasons for the interruptions and unwillingness to participate, as this may shed light on factors influencing participation rates?

� Line 285: Could you elaborate on why the adjusted odds ratios for significantly associated variables are substantially higher than their crude counterparts?

Discussion part:

� Lines 423-424: Could the authors elaborate on the potential mechanisms through which perceived stigma, family influence, and lack of access contribute to the decision to utilize indirect pathways?

� Line 445: Given the prominent role of religious healers in this study, how do the authors envision integrating these practices with modern psychiatric services to improve access to care?

� Lines 443-447: Beyond the recommendations for collaboration between mental health professionals and religious organizations, what other policy interventions could be implemented to address the challenges identified in this study?

Better add the followings

1. Study strengths and limitations

2. Recommendation

Reviewer #2: Title

More of the manuscript framed the title to" indirect path psychiatric care". So should modify it.

Abstract:

Methodology: should explain study period and major components are missed. So should rewrite it.

1. What does mean? “We conducted a 25 multivariable binary logistic regression analysis”

2. Key words: add the word “factors”

Introduction

This article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of indirect path psychiatric care. The introduction statements should be revising to reduce unnecessary sentences, and summarized again. Additionally, grammatical should be corrected to ensure a smooth reading experience. There is no sufficient introduction and explanation about the topic area.

Objective: Not clearly set in the manuscript.

Materials and methods

1. Not clear enough

2. The study setting mental health service types is not clear.

3. Should mention the types of mental health services in the DCSH and explain the average number of psychiatric patients (visits) in every month in the DCSH.

3. Study period Format should be rewrite or stated like Date/month/year.

4. Franckly, sample size calculation is not clear.

5. Both Sampling procedures and sampling techniques are not clear.

6. Eligibility criteria is not clear and Write briefly about the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

7. How many patients were there during the time frame of the study? How many of these patients were not included in the study? Explain clearly why they were not included. If not, it’s difficult to accept the study.

8. Show clearly how it was possible to achieve the actual sample size i .e 454 out of 828 patients in three months.

9. Show clearly how many new cases and follow up cases were during the study period?

Study tools: clear

Source populations: not clear enough Study populations?

Operational definition is not clear

VIF: Write down the value of VIF in number how much it was and also write down the scientific explanation of VIF.

Model of fitness...Not clear, how much it was.

The manuscript has no ethical section. Since its human participant research you should have incorporate the ethical issues in the manuscript.

Result part

1. When the clinical variables were categorized, the authors used the term "psychosis" as a disorder category. This is not a disorder category rather its symptom. So what do you mean “Psychosis" in your study or use the correct disorder category based on ICD-11 or DSM-5 diseases classification manuals.

2. In the associated factors table the P value is not set.

Discussion part

1. Should incorporate the clinical implication of the study finding?

2. The focus of the recommendations should be specific on the study findings.

Example...should recommend about age, being female, and being farmer.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Misrak Negash Shonor

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comment on pathway to psychiatric care.docx

pone.0328724.s002.docx (18.4KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: responce to authors.docx

pone.0328724.s003.docx (13.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 24;20(7):e0328724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328724.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Apr 2025

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We have carefully considered all comments and made the necessary revisions to address them. We have attached our response to each comment and question.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0328724.s004.docx (45.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Dear Dr. Kebede,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

I appreciate that you have revised your manuscript accordingly. Since the first reviewers were unavailable, I invited new reviewers to the revised version. They have also considered review reports of original reviewers, and they are satisfied with your revised version despite minor comments below.

Please also clarify ethical issues while interviewing people taking care of their mental illness. I am not sure only oral consent is ethically enough to interview study participants. Once you address this issue and the minor comments of one reviewer, I hope your manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Thanks!

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: Overall: I would like to thank for giving chance to review this interesting work. This study will have great value in low and middle income countries to enhance awareness and prevention strategies for mental health wellbeing. This manuscript reviewed strongly by previous reviewers and authors revised manuscript based on comments. I hope this is good job.

I have few minor comments, find it below

Comments

Abstract section

1. Describe the meaning of pathways to psychiatric care and its impact on mental health

Introduction/Background

1. It is better to explain in detail about indirect Pathways to psychiatric care challenges and its contribution to mental disorders.

2. This study mentioned that ‘‘Debre Berhan) is known for the availability of different holy water places, which are considered an alternative source for mental health care. We expect most PWMDs from various parts of the country to visit those places, hoping for a cure’’. What is relevancy for this statement? Holy water place is easily available in most part of Ethiopia. Why various parts of Ethiopian people going to Debre Berhan for hoping cure? Since holy water is similar in any place. How holy water in Debre Berhan is superior than others place to think most part of country’s people to hope cure. Please remove this statement since holy water is common in all regions in Ethiopia, there is no clear evidence for superiority of holy water in different region.

3. Introductions section is bulky. It is better to make short and precise this section.

Method

1. Participants for this study from patients receiving care in psychiatry clinic during study period. But this study focused indirect contact for psychiatry care, so which contact you assessed current or any contact for help sought? Please describe it clearly.

Result section

1. Other occupational status described as daily laborer, shoeshine, and prisoners. Is it being prisoner categorized as occupation? Modify this.

Finally; - thank you for your contribution to existing body of knowledge’s

Reviewer #4: All my concerns are addressed by previous reviewers, and the authors also addressed them well manner

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Tamene Berhanu Alaho

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comment by Tamene Berhanu May 9, 2025.docx

pone.0328724.s005.docx (17.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 24;20(7):e0328724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328724.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


26 Jun 2025

Thank you for your message regarding the metadata (SPSS data file). I apologize for the inconvenience.

I have now re-exported the dataset in .csv. Kindly let me know if there are any further issues or if a different format would be preferred.

Thank you for your comment. As stated in the methods section page 8 line 136-140, we assessed participants' capacity to give consent using a three-item tool to evaluate their ability to give consent before enrollment. Only those who were capable of providing consent were included in the study. Given the minimal risk involved and the nature of the study, we assumed that oral consent was sufficient. The other reason we went for oral consent was that we expected participants to be less educated and have limited ability to read and write, making it challenging to manage written consent procedures (one-third of the study participants are not able to read and write). To ensure consistency and inclusiveness, we chose to obtain oral informed consent after confirming the participant’s capacity to participate in the study. All participants were fully informed about the study’s purpose, their rights, and the voluntary nature of participation. This approach was approved by the Debre Berhan University College of Health Sciences ethical review committee. The meeting and protocol numbers referenced in the ethical committee letter were 1/2021 and 11/12/CHS/SPH.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0328724.s006.docx (38.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Pathways to Psychiatric Care in Debre Berhan, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-24-27256R2

Dear Dr. Kaleab,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Alemayehu Molla Wollie

PONE-D-24-27256R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kebede,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mr. Alemayehu Molla Wollie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1. Data Sav.

    (SAV)

    pone.0328724.s001.sav (113.9KB, sav)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comment on pathway to psychiatric care.docx

    pone.0328724.s002.docx (18.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: responce to authors.docx

    pone.0328724.s003.docx (13.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0328724.s004.docx (45.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comment by Tamene Berhanu May 9, 2025.docx

    pone.0328724.s005.docx (17.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0328724.s006.docx (38.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES