Cargando…
Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users
Normalisation theory made perfect sense at the onset of de-institutionalisation. To map its influence on mental health facilities, research was conducted and began with ten facilities within England (UK) and France, followed by a further two in England and four in New Zealand. A checklist tailored t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9319535/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35886685 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148832 |
_version_ | 1784755573017804800 |
---|---|
author | Chrysikou, Evangelia Savvopoulou, Eleftheria Biddulph, Jane Jenkin, Gabrielle |
author_facet | Chrysikou, Evangelia Savvopoulou, Eleftheria Biddulph, Jane Jenkin, Gabrielle |
author_sort | Chrysikou, Evangelia |
collection | PubMed |
description | Normalisation theory made perfect sense at the onset of de-institutionalisation. To map its influence on mental health facilities, research was conducted and began with ten facilities within England (UK) and France, followed by a further two in England and four in New Zealand. A checklist tailored to mental health facilities was used to measure the extent to which the facility looked domestic or institutional. Hence, the mental health checklist architecturally measured domesticity versus institutionalisation in psychiatric architecture. It consisted of 212 features, grouped into three main categories—context and site; building; and space and room—and was based on a pre-existing checklist designed for hostels for those with learning disabilities. The mental health checklist was developed and piloted in Europe and reflected European de-institutionalisation principles. Cross-country comparison revealed that patient acuity was potentially not a determinant of institutional buildings for mental health. Institutional facilities in France were detected, and some of the most domestic facilities were within England, with the most recent sample having a greater tendency towards the more institutional end. Those in New Zealand tended towards the most institutional. Across all 16 facilities, there were very few universal institutional and domestic features, raising the ambiguity of a clearly defined stereotype of facilities for mental health service users. Consequently, the current fluidity of design across and within countries provides a significant opportunity for designers and mental health providers to consider non-institutional design, particularly at the planning stage. The use of the mental health checklist facilitates this debate. Future research in other geographical areas and through further consideration of cultural differences provides further opportunities to extend research in this area, with the potential to enhance and improve the lived experience of users of mental health services. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9319535 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93195352022-07-27 Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users Chrysikou, Evangelia Savvopoulou, Eleftheria Biddulph, Jane Jenkin, Gabrielle Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Normalisation theory made perfect sense at the onset of de-institutionalisation. To map its influence on mental health facilities, research was conducted and began with ten facilities within England (UK) and France, followed by a further two in England and four in New Zealand. A checklist tailored to mental health facilities was used to measure the extent to which the facility looked domestic or institutional. Hence, the mental health checklist architecturally measured domesticity versus institutionalisation in psychiatric architecture. It consisted of 212 features, grouped into three main categories—context and site; building; and space and room—and was based on a pre-existing checklist designed for hostels for those with learning disabilities. The mental health checklist was developed and piloted in Europe and reflected European de-institutionalisation principles. Cross-country comparison revealed that patient acuity was potentially not a determinant of institutional buildings for mental health. Institutional facilities in France were detected, and some of the most domestic facilities were within England, with the most recent sample having a greater tendency towards the more institutional end. Those in New Zealand tended towards the most institutional. Across all 16 facilities, there were very few universal institutional and domestic features, raising the ambiguity of a clearly defined stereotype of facilities for mental health service users. Consequently, the current fluidity of design across and within countries provides a significant opportunity for designers and mental health providers to consider non-institutional design, particularly at the planning stage. The use of the mental health checklist facilitates this debate. Future research in other geographical areas and through further consideration of cultural differences provides further opportunities to extend research in this area, with the potential to enhance and improve the lived experience of users of mental health services. MDPI 2022-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9319535/ /pubmed/35886685 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148832 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Chrysikou, Evangelia Savvopoulou, Eleftheria Biddulph, Jane Jenkin, Gabrielle Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users |
title | Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users |
title_full | Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users |
title_fullStr | Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users |
title_full_unstemmed | Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users |
title_short | Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users |
title_sort | decoding the psychiatric space: cross country comparison of facilities for mental health service users |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9319535/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35886685 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148832 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chrysikouevangelia decodingthepsychiatricspacecrosscountrycomparisonoffacilitiesformentalhealthserviceusers AT savvopouloueleftheria decodingthepsychiatricspacecrosscountrycomparisonoffacilitiesformentalhealthserviceusers AT biddulphjane decodingthepsychiatricspacecrosscountrycomparisonoffacilitiesformentalhealthserviceusers AT jenkingabrielle decodingthepsychiatricspacecrosscountrycomparisonoffacilitiesformentalhealthserviceusers |