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

Evangelia Chrysikou, Eleftheria Savvopoulou, Jane Biddulph and Gabrielle Jenkin
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 14, 1-14

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.

Keywords: mental health; mental health facilities; psychiatric architecture; de-institutionalisation; normalisation theory (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8832/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8832/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8832-:d:867530

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().