Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCharles, Ashleigh
dc.contributor.authorRennick-Egglestone, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorSlade, Mike
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-01T14:35:21Z
dc.date.available2024-10-01T14:35:21Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationYeo, C., Charles, A., Lewandowski, F., Lichtenberg, P., Rennick-Egglestone, S., Slade, M., Tang, Y., Voronka, J. & Rodrigues, L. (2024). Healing Houses systematic review: Design, sustainability, opportunities and barriers facing Soteria and peer respite development. Journal of Mental Health, Epub ahead of print, pp.1-12.en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1080/09638237.2024.2361233
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18987
dc.description© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Soteria houses and peer respites, collectively called Healing Houses, are alternatives to psychiatric hospitalisation. AIMS: The aim of this research is to review Healing Houses in relation to design characteristics (architectural and service), sustainability and development opportunities and barriers. METHODS: This systematic review followed a PROSPERO protocol (CRD42022378089). Articles were identified from journal database searches, hand searching websites, Google Scholar searches, expert consultation and backwards and forward citation searches. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-nine documents were screened in three languages (English, German and Hebrew) and 45 documents were included from seven countries. The review highlights 11 architectural design characteristics (atmosphere, size, soft room, history, location, outdoor space, cleanliness, interior design, facilities, staff only areas and accessibility), six service design characteristics (guiding principles, living and working together, consensual treatment, staff, supporting personal meaning making and power), five opportunities (outcomes, human rights, economics, hospitalization and underserved) and four types of barriers (clinical, economic and regulatory, societal and ideological). The primary sustainability issue was long-term funding. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on operationalizing a "home-like" atmosphere and the impact of design features such as green spaces on wellbeing of staff and service users. Future research could also produce design guidelines for Healing Houses.
dc.description.urihttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638237.2024.2361233#d1e467en_US
dc.formatFull text uploaded
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectTherapeutic communityen_US
dc.subjectPsychosisen_US
dc.titleHealing Houses systematic review: Design, sustainability, opportunities and barriers facing Soteria and peer respite developmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFOA2024-10-01T14:35:22Z
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2024-07-16
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Soteria houses and peer respites, collectively called Healing Houses, are alternatives to psychiatric hospitalisation. AIMS: The aim of this research is to review Healing Houses in relation to design characteristics (architectural and service), sustainability and development opportunities and barriers. METHODS: This systematic review followed a PROSPERO protocol (CRD42022378089). Articles were identified from journal database searches, hand searching websites, Google Scholar searches, expert consultation and backwards and forward citation searches. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-nine documents were screened in three languages (English, German and Hebrew) and 45 documents were included from seven countries. The review highlights 11 architectural design characteristics (atmosphere, size, soft room, history, location, outdoor space, cleanliness, interior design, facilities, staff only areas and accessibility), six service design characteristics (guiding principles, living and working together, consensual treatment, staff, supporting personal meaning making and power), five opportunities (outcomes, human rights, economics, hospitalization and underserved) and four types of barriers (clinical, economic and regulatory, societal and ideological). The primary sustainability issue was long-term funding. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on operationalizing a "home-like" atmosphere and the impact of design features such as green spaces on wellbeing of staff and service users. Future research could also produce design guidelines for Healing Houses.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Yeo 2024 1-13.pdf
Size:
1.629Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record