Amid the rising demand for more humane and community-based mental health care solutions, the concept of Healing Houses, which includes Soteria houses and peer respites, has garnered significant attention. Positioned as alternatives to traditional psychiatric hospitalization, these facilities emphasize a blend of architectural and service design elements conducive to healing. This comprehensive review explores the multifaceted dimensions of Healing Houses, shedding light on their design characteristics, sustainability concerns, and the potential barriers facing their widespread adoption.
Architectural and Service Design
The study identifies 11 critical architectural design characteristics that contribute to the therapeutic environment of Healing Houses. These include the overall atmosphere, building size, incorporation of soft rooms, historical significance, strategic location, availability of outdoor spaces, cleanliness, interior design, facilities, designated staff-only areas, and accessibility. Additionally, six service design characteristics were highlighted, focusing on guiding principles, collaborative living and working arrangements, consensual treatment approaches, staff roles, support for personal meaning-making, and power dynamics within the setting.
Opportunities and Barriers
Healing Houses present several opportunities, such as improved treatment outcomes, enhanced human rights, economic benefits, reduced hospitalization rates, and better service provision for underserved populations. Despite these advantages, the review identifies significant barriers, including clinical, economic, regulatory, societal, and ideological challenges. One of the most pressing issues is the sustainability of these facilities, particularly concerning long-term funding.
From a market access perspective, the design and sustainability elements of Healing Houses are crucial for their integration into broader mental health care systems. The architectural aspects, such as location and accessibility, significantly impact market reach and acceptance. Similarly, the economic considerations tied to sustainability, including funding and cost-effectiveness, play a pivotal role in determining the feasibility and scalability of these alternatives.
Inferences on Market Access
- The strategic location of Healing Houses can enhance market access by making them more accessible to diverse populations.
- Long-term funding strategies are essential to ensure the economic viability and scalability of Healing Houses.
- Service design elements, such as collaborative treatment approaches, can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes, thereby increasing market acceptance.
- The incorporation of green spaces and other therapeutic design features can attract both service users and staff, enhancing the overall appeal and effectiveness of Healing Houses.
In conclusion, the research underscores the need for future studies to operationalize the “home-like” atmosphere of Healing Houses and examine the impact of specific design features, such as green spaces, on the well-being of both staff and service users. Additionally, there is a call for the development of comprehensive design guidelines to facilitate the creation and implementation of Healing Houses on a broader scale.
Original Article:
J Ment Health. 2024 Jul 16:1-12. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2024.2361233. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Soteria houses and peer respites, collectively called Healing Houses, are alternatives to psychiatric hospitalisation.
AIMS: The aim of this research is to review Healing Houses in relation to design characteristics (architectural and service), sustainability and development opportunities and barriers.
METHODS: This systematic review followed a PROSPERO protocol (CRD42022378089). Articles were identified from journal database searches, hand searching websites, Google Scholar searches, expert consultation and backwards and forward citation searches.
RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-nine documents were screened in three languages (English, German and Hebrew) and 45 documents were included from seven countries. The review highlights 11 architectural design characteristics (atmosphere, size, soft room, history, location, outdoor space, cleanliness, interior design, facilities, staff only areas and accessibility), six service design characteristics (guiding principles, living and working together, consensual treatment, staff, supporting personal meaning making and power), five opportunities (outcomes, human rights, economics, hospitalization and underserved) and four types of barriers (clinical, economic and regulatory, societal and ideological). The primary sustainability issue was long-term funding.
CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on operationalizing a “home-like” atmosphere and the impact of design features such as green spaces on wellbeing of staff and service users. Future research could also produce design guidelines for Healing Houses.
PMID:39014933 | DOI:10.1080/09638237.2024.2361233
This article has been prepared with the assistance of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more details, please refer to our Terms and Conditions. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author.
