Clinical and psychosocial profile of persons with mental illness living in non-hospital residential facilities in a district in Kerala, India: A cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Background: Clinical and psychosocial profiles of persons living with mental illness (PMI) in non-hospital settings in India have not been adequately studied. Aim: This study describes the profile of PMI living in non-hospital settings by focussing on variables like functioning and social networks. Method: Residents of all available residential facilities in one district area were surveyed and descriptive data was obtained. Socio occupational functioning was assessed using the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFS) and social network was measured by modified Lubben Social Network Scale-6 (LSNS-6). Results: A total of nine centres housing 491 residents (7–128) were surveyed via field visits. The mean age of the residents was 49 ± 14.0 years. Fifty per cent of them were never married, 22% were separated or widowed. Almost half of the people had psychotic disorders, while diagnosis could not be delineated in a quarter of the population. Almost half the people reached the facilities with the help of their families, while 40% were brought by police or volunteers who found them wandering. Impairment in socio-occupational functioning was only mild in 90% of residents, while 60% did not contact relatives or friends in the past 3 months. Conclusion: PMI living in non-hospital residential facilities were on average in their middle age and were deficient in marital bonds and other social support. They had reached the centres with the help of extended family or by police/volunteers who rescued them from wandering status. Nevertheless, most of them had only mild to moderate levels of impairment, and their functional capacity was good for independent living in the community with support. Hence, newer models of supported housing that provide greater community reintegration, like independent shared housing within regular neighbourhoods, can be tried. In persons with residual family ties, providing continuous community-based support may help re-establish family integration.

Psychosocial preparedness among homeless people: A study from an urban rehabilitation center in South India

“…[ 9 10 12 14 ] The reasons that there were more males among the homeless persons could be because of financial difficulties, substance abuse, unemployment, and lack of social support. Studies from India and abroad[ 11 12 15 16 ] reported similar results in the socio-demographic variables, especially in unemployment, substance abuse, mental illness, inadequate support networks, and lack of affordable housing. This shows the general characteristics of street people both homeless persons with mental illness and homeless persons without mental illness.…”

“…To reduce functional disability and improve clinical outcomes, greater community integration of the homeless and mentally ill people is essential. [ 11 20 ] The current study suggests that psychosocial preparedness among HMI is the most significant aspect when considering independent housing or community living for HMI.…”

“…This helps the homeless persons to gain self-esteem and live a dignified life in the future with better quality of life. [ 11 ] The level of preparedness among homeless persons is an important factor to decide on their reintegration as the reasons for homelessness vary from person to person. This research made an attempt to study the level of preparedness among homeless persons in the Government Relief and Rehabilitation Center, Bengaluru, and thereafter to plan for the reintegration of the homeless persons into community life.…”

Residential Rehabilitation Facilities for Persons with Mental Illness: Current Status and Future Directions Based on a Survey from Kollam District of Kerala

“…15 As part of a larger survey, the authors got an opportunity to visit and interact with the residents and facility managers of all residential facilities (n = 9) in one entire district area (Kollam district). 16 Almost all centers (n = 8) were registered as homes under the Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 17 Under this Act, the Orphanages Control Board supervises and controls all homes in the state, whether for the "differently-abled, beggars, women in distress, old age, or mentally ill persons. "…”