Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32271784›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Supported Housing as a recovery option for long-stay patients with severe mental illness in a psychiatric hospital in South India: Learning from an innovative de-hospitalization process.

Archana Padmakar, Emma Emily de Wit, Sagaya Mary, Eline Regeer, Joske Bunders-Aelen, Barbara Regeer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. "Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Archana PadmakarThe Banyan Academy of Leadership in Mental Health (BALM), Chennai, India.
Emma Emily de WitAthena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4047-0555
Sagaya MaryThe Banyan Academy of Leadership in Mental Health (BALM), Chennai, India.
Eline RegeerAltrecht, Mental Health Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Joske Bunders-AelenAthena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Barbara RegeerAthena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAltrecht GGZ · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with severe mental illness have long been segregated from living in communities and participating in socio- cultural life. In recent years, owing to progressive legislations and declarations (in India and globally), there has been a growing movement towards promoting social inclusion and community participation, with emphasis on the need to develop alternative and inclusive care paradigms for persons with severe mental illness. However, transitions from inpatient care to community settings is a complex process involving implications at multiple levels involving diverse stakeholders such as mental health service users, care providers, local communities and policy makers. This article studies how the transition from a hospital setting to a community-based recovery model for personals with severe mental illness can be facilitated. It reflects on the innovative process of creating a Supported Housing model in South India, where 11 MH Service users transitioned from a psychiatric ECRC to independent living facilities. Experiences in various phases of the project development, including care provider- and community level responses and feedback were scrutinised to understand the strategies that were employed in enabling the transition. Qualitative methods (including in-depth interviews and naturalistic observations) were used with residents and staff members to explore the challenges they encountered in stabilizing the model, as well as the psychosocial benefits experienced by residents in the last phase. These were complemented with a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and WHO Quality of Life scale to compare baseline and post-assessment results and an increase of quality of life. Results display a significant reduction of psychiatric symptoms in patients (p< 0.5). It also describes the challenges encountered in the current context, and strategies that were used to respond and adapt the model to address these concerns effectively. Positive behavioural and psycho-emotional changes were observed amongst the residents, significant amongst those being enhanced in their mobility and participation. The article concludes by discussing the implications of this study for the development of innovative community-based models in wider contexts.

Indexed as

Hospitals, PsychiatricHousingLength of StayOrganizational InnovationAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansIndiaMental DisordersMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalQuality of LifeSocial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID32271784
PMCPMC7144972
OpenAlexW3015399614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.