Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40718401›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Deinstitutionalization second time around - What can we learn from the psychiatric experience?

Uri Manor, Gad Segal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Uri ManorEducation Authority, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3912-6957
Gad SegalEducation Authority, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3851-3245

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This historical opinion article draws parallels between mid-20th-century psychiatric deinstitutionalization and today's rapid expansion of home-based medical care. While psychiatric conditions differ fundamentally from acute medical illnesses, lessons from deinstitutionalization can inform current and future telemedicine models. Deinstitutionalization resulted from social, legal, and pharmaceutical advances but also produced unforeseen consequences, including increased incarceration, homelessness, medication misuse, and significant family burden. Similarly, shifting acute care to the home may expose patients and caregivers to new stresses: elevated risk of medical complications, uneven access to technology, cost-shifting, and the potential neglect of those most vulnerable or socially disadvantaged. Historical patterns show that successful community-based care demands strong infrastructure, equitable resource allocation, and thorough patient selection. This manuscript urges stakeholders to heed these lessons and build robust, multidisciplinary, and family-centered systems to support patients transitioning to home care. With proper planning, the current dehospitalization process can achieve its promise of high-quality, cost-effective care without repeating the pitfalls of past reforms.

Indexed as

Dehospitalizationdeinstitutionalizationhospital-at-homepsychiatrytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40718401
PMCPMC12290260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.