Supported housing services for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems in Serbia—Social and community integration or “mini‐institutions”

Abstract

Minimal general knowledge of the quality of life (QoL) of people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems (ID/MHP) in Serbia exists at present. The outcomes of the deinstitutionalisation process of these groups, which began in 2015, are very questionable-many individuals have faced challenges, and very few have been deinstitutionalised to date. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of quality of life in the domain of social belonging/community integration, the differences in this domain between persons with ID/MHP living together in institutional residential arrangements and community settings, particularly in supported housing, and the differences in the same domain relating to the service provider (governmental/state-run or non-governmental sector). The results of the study indicate that the level of social belonging for this specific population is low, especially on indicators such as belonging to civic or community clubs or organisations, participating in events in the local community, and establishing friendships and emotional relationships. Users of services provided by the non-governmental sector show slightly higher scores in this domain compared to institutionalised users and users in supported housing. The organisational culture based on institutionalism is transferred to community services, leading to an inability to fulfil the basic principles of proclaimed deinstitutionalisation. The recommendations provided should enable the basing of support services for persons with ID/MHP on the principles of deinstitutionalisation while respecting their rights and facilitating their participation in local communities.

The Systematic Integrative Narrative Review on Community Support Practices and Outcomes in Social and Community Housing

“…Quality of life. Holism and person-environment are significant considerations and authors • refer to the biopsychosocial model of health (Agarwal & Brydges, 2018), the social mix model (Thompson & Costello, 2021), the socio-ecological model and community networks (Rogers, Johnson, Nueslein, Edmunds, & Valdez, 2018), a social-contextual framework (Shelton, McNeill, Puleo, Wolin, Emmons, & Bennett, 2011), placemaking (Yu, Lin, & Dąbrowski, 2022), a quality-of-life perspective (Stoeckel, Brkić, & Vesić, 2022), and quality-of-life and equity frameworks (Suto, Smith, Damiano, & Channe, 2021). Nature.…”