ArticlePLOS mental health2025
Licensing and regulation of the mental health residential care facilities: A case study from the Sedibeng district, South Africa.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The World Health Organization advocates for the regulating of mental health accommodation services to ensure that they use a person-centered approach and promote human rights. However, many low-middle-income countries still face challenges that prevent them from delivering services according to such regulations. In this study, we explore the experiences of regulating mental health residential facilities in one district of South Africa. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews and observations from October 2022 to June 2023. Our participants were district governance and compliance team members, and managers, staff, residents and their families of three residential facilities. The governance team tried to ensure facilities complied with regulatory standards, assisting them where possible to meet those standards. Managers and family members understood that enforcing regulation will help improve service delivery. However, managers reported that some regulatory standards were more appropriate for hospitals than residential facilities. Facility staff felt neglected and undervalued by the governance team. Residents found the inspection process intrusive. Managers reported that their experience of providing residential services was undervalued in the regulatory process and that the funding for their facilities was insufficient for them to meet current standards. The governance team were aware there was a shortage of residential care facilities so had to decide which facilities to license even when they did not meet current standards. Current inspection, licensing and regulation of mental health residential facilities in South Africa is not yet fit for purpose and may hinder residents to achieve independency and quality of life. Involvement of service users and providers in mental health care planning may help align the licensing regulations to residential care services that are truly community-based.
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.