Healing Houses systematic review: Design, sustainability, opportunities and barriers facing Soteria and peer respite development
dc.contributor.author | Charles, Ashleigh | |
dc.contributor.author | Rennick-Egglestone, Stefan | |
dc.contributor.author | Slade, Mike | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-10-01T14:35:21Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-10-01T14:35:21Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Yeo, 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.other | 10.1080/09638237.2024.2361233 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://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.abstract | BACKGROUND: 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.uri | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638237.2024.2361233#d1e467 | en_US |
dc.format | Full text uploaded | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.subject | Therapeutic community | en_US |
dc.subject | Psychosis | en_US |
dc.title | Healing Houses systematic review: Design, sustainability, opportunities and barriers facing Soteria and peer respite development | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
rioxxterms.funder | Default funder | en_US |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | Default project | en_US |
rioxxterms.version | NA | en_US |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_US |
refterms.dateFOA | 2024-10-01T14:35:22Z | |
refterms.panel | Unspecified | en_US |
refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2024-07-16 | |
html.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: 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.project | 94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cd | en_US |