ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Why deinstitutionalisation still matters: Reclaiming a contested horizon in global mental health.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. 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
Abstract
Psychiatric deinstitutionalisation (PDI) has re-emerged as an important concern in global mental health in response to the persistence of long-term institutionalisation and human rights abuses in institutions. However, contemporary responses continue to frame reform largely in managerial and technocratic terms, prioritising service coverage, bed reductions, workforce expansion, and scalability. We argue that this framing narrows the meaning of reform and its capacity to address the institutional, political, and social conditions through which psychiatric care is organised. Drawing on critical perspectives on PDI and experiences from South America, we show how PDI has developed through distinct relationships between institutional transformation, democratisation, social mobilisation, and citizenship. These trajectories illuminate contemporary dilemmas such as transinstitutionalisation, fragmented systems of care, and the persistence of segregationist and custodial logics within community settings. We propose three lenses for re-engaging with PDI as an ongoing political and ethical project: attending to context and history, decentring dominant geographies of reform, and foregrounding lived experience. Together, these lenses shift attention towards the sites where reform is actually produced-across research, policy, training, activism, and governance- and highlight the contribution of South American experiences to ongoing debates on institutional transformation.
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.