IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8832-d867530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users

Author

Listed:
  • Evangelia Chrysikou

    (The Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK)

  • Eleftheria Savvopoulou

    (Independent Researcher, 10676 Athens, Greece)

  • Jane Biddulph

    (Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK)

  • Gabrielle Jenkin

    (Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington 6242, New Zealand)

Abstract

Normalisation theory made perfect sense at the onset of de-institutionalisation. To map its influence on mental health facilities, research was conducted and began with ten facilities within England (UK) and France, followed by a further two in England and four in New Zealand. A checklist tailored to mental health facilities was used to measure the extent to which the facility looked domestic or institutional. Hence, the mental health checklist architecturally measured domesticity versus institutionalisation in psychiatric architecture. It consisted of 212 features, grouped into three main categories—context and site; building; and space and room—and was based on a pre-existing checklist designed for hostels for those with learning disabilities. The mental health checklist was developed and piloted in Europe and reflected European de-institutionalisation principles. Cross-country comparison revealed that patient acuity was potentially not a determinant of institutional buildings for mental health. Institutional facilities in France were detected, and some of the most domestic facilities were within England, with the most recent sample having a greater tendency towards the more institutional end. Those in New Zealand tended towards the most institutional. Across all 16 facilities, there were very few universal institutional and domestic features, raising the ambiguity of a clearly defined stereotype of facilities for mental health service users. Consequently, the current fluidity of design across and within countries provides a significant opportunity for designers and mental health providers to consider non-institutional design, particularly at the planning stage. The use of the mental health checklist facilitates this debate. Future research in other geographical areas and through further consideration of cultural differences provides further opportunities to extend research in this area, with the potential to enhance and improve the lived experience of users of mental health services.

Suggested Citation

  • Evangelia Chrysikou & Eleftheria Savvopoulou & Jane Biddulph & Gabrielle Jenkin, 2022. "Decoding the Psychiatric Space: Cross Country Comparison of Facilities for Mental Health Service Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8832-:d:867530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8832/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8832/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8832-:d:867530. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.