ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2024
Addressing Challenges in Residential Facilities: Promoting Human Rights and Recovery While Pursuing Functional Autonomy.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in Personal Recovery Among Individuals with Severe Mental Disorders in Private and Supported Accommodations: An Exploratory Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The key pillars of psychosocial disability: a European perspective on challenges and solutions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Implementing the flexible ACT model in an Italian residential facilities multidisciplinary team.The International journal of social psychiatry · 2024Article
- Independent Supported Housing vs institutional housing rehabilitation settings for non-homeless individuals with severe mental illness - longitudinal results from an observational study.BMC psychiatry · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Italian residential facilities (RFs) aim to promote human rights and recovery for individuals with severe mental disorders. Italian RFs can be distinguished into five main types: high-intensity rehabilitation (RF1), medium-intensity rehabilitation (RF2), medium-level support (RF3.1), high-level support (RF3.2), low-level support (RF3.3). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of Italian RFs in achieving functional autonomy while upholding human rights and recovery. Methods: Data on socio-demographics, clinical information, patient and staff assessments of functional autonomy, types of interventions, and RF performance in various domains were collected in a pilot study with a cross-sectional design. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted. Results: Twelve RFs and 113 patients participated, with varying proportions in each RF type. RF1 patients were the oldest ( Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that Italian RFs generally aligne with their mission and human rights principles, but personalizing interventions and implementing recovery-oriented practices face challenges.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.