Untitled

Abstract

Despite the consensus regarding community integration as a major goal of mental health policy and the emergence of supportive independent housing as a critical component of community mental health services, mental health services research has not examined the extent to which housing and service characteristics are associated with community integration of persons with psychiatric disabilities in supportive independent housing. The main goal of this paper is to propose a conceptual model of factors influencing community integration that takes into account the differential configuration of housing setting and support structure in supportive independent housing. The conceptual model encompasses a multidimensional conceptualization of community integration and considers an array of housing and service characteristics that are potentially relevant determinants of community integration. On the basis of the proposed model, this paper outlines the methodological considerations for future research with regard to measurement, research designs, and statistical models.

Outcome Among Community Dwelling Older Adults with Schizophrenia: Results Using Five Conceptual Models

“…There have been no prior prevalence data based on the integrated community conceptual model proposed by Wong and Solomon (2002). We found that members of the Community Comparison Group were nearly twice as likely as those in the Schizophrenia Group to be in the top three categories in the Community Integration Scale (41 vs. 23%).…”

“…We adapted the conceptual model of Wong and Solomon (2002) and its operationalization by Gulcur et al (2007). It consisted of 12 variables divided into 4 dimensions: Independence (goes places, shopping); Psychological integration (''moderate/very satisfied'' on neighborhood satisfaction, house/apt/residence satisfaction, emotional support from non-family, emotional support from family); Physical integration (joins in activities, does not avoid others, mean of agree/strongly agree on the Self-Esteem Scale (which served as an indicator of non-stigmatization); Social integration (number reliable non-kin C3, number of agency linkages C3, at least monthly attendance at church attendance or senior/recreational center, or consumer group program).…”

“…Community Integration is an outcome measure that has a more psychosocial focus. Rather than focusing on clinical symptoms, social integration examines the extent to which a person lives, participates, and socializes in his or her community (Gulcur et al 2007;Wong and Solomon 2002). It has been theorized to consist of three dimensions: physical integration (e.g., extent of engagement and use of community resources), social integration (e.g., social relationships with neighbors), and psychological integration (e.g., extent to which people feel they belong in the community).…”

Utilizing social media to support community integration

“…Participation in diverse and meaningful activities provides opportunities for social connectedness (Sörgaard et al, 2001) and contributes to wellbeing and recovery (Lai et al, 2013;Windell & Norman, 2012). Wong and Solomon developed a model of community integration that is divided into four factors (i.e., psychological integration, physical integration, social integration, and independence; Gulcur, Tsemberis, Stefancic, & Greenwood, 2008;Wong & Solomon, 2002). This model provides a framework for the development of interventions that promote community integration.…”

“…Further research on the Wong and Solomon (2002) model identified specific variables relevant to each of the four domains. Specifically, psychological integration comprises quality of life, psychological well-being, and neighborhood cohesion; physical integration comprises organization participation and involvement in leisure activities; social integration represents social support and having individuals from one's neighborhood in his or her social network; and independence was closely associated with selfactualization (Gulcur et al, 2008).…”