Discussions about the importance of the built environment for healthcare delivery extend at least as far back as Hippocrates 1 (400 BC). The iconic Florence Nightingale (1859) also strongly believed in the influence the indoor environment has on the progress of disease and recovery. Today, the role of the built environment in the healing process is of growing interest to healthcare providers, environmental psychologists, consultants, and architects. Although there is a mounting evidence 1 linking healthcare environments to health outcomes, because of the varying quality of that evidence, there has also been a lack of clarity around what can and cannot be achieved through design. Given the ageing of society and the ever increasing numbers of persons with dementia in the Western World, the need for detailed knowledge about aged care environments has also become increasingly important. The mental and physical health state of these persons is extremely fragile and their needs demand careful consideration. Although environmental interventions constitute only a fraction of what is needed for people with dementia to remain as independent as possible, there is now sufficient evidence (2, 3) to argue they can be used as a first-line treatment, rather than beginning with farmalogical interventions.
Introduction and methodology In self-managed residential homeless care, consumers, and their peers, are in charge. Former consumers (N=24) of a self-managed homeless shelter were interviewed with qualitative structured topic-lists on the benefits they experienced. Former consumers of the program participated as co-researchers, together with students and experienced researchers. This research is part of a larger program researching self-managed residential programs. ResultsIn the self-managed shelter consumers can work on their recovery towards independent living. For the respondents, the self-managed shelter is a place where they can stay for a longer period without the stress of having to look for another place and without the hassle from social workers telling them what to do and how to behave. How the former consumers used this stability and freedom differs. Some worked towards independent living on their own, others also developed skills, self-worth and new social roles (helper, friend) through participation and others used the shelter to stay free from stress and hassle. Moving on towards independent living isn’t an immediate goal for the latter, although many consumers in the end started working towards independent living.Most of the respondents state that their live has improved when it comes to mental health, living situations and social aspects, although some respondents report issues with finances and social contacts. DiscussionThere are two main limitations to our research. Firstly, consumers who only stayed for a short while, consumers who stayed in the shelter more than a few years ago and consumer who left the program are underrepresented in our data. Secondly, a lot of the respondents deflected questions about their personal recovery (self-worth, trust, self-efficacy), because this ‘was not relevant for them’. Anecdotal evidence from peer workers and social workers and some of the respondents suggests that staying in the self-managed shelter contributes to personal recovery of consumers as well, but more research is necessary to determine how and to what extend consumers work on their personal recovery within self-managed programs.
In the Netherlands, there is an increasing need for collective forms of housing for older people. Such housing bridges the gap between the extremes of living in an institutionalised setting and remaining in their own house. The demand is related to the closure of many residential care homes and the need for social engagement with other residents. This study focuses on housing initiatives that offer innovative and alternative forms of independent living, which deviate from mainstream housing arrangements. It draws on recent literature on healthcare ‘rebels’ and further develops the concept of ‘rebellion’ in the context of housing. The main research question is how founders dealt with challenges of establishing and governing ‘rebellious’ innovative living arrangements for older people in the highly regulated context of housing and care in the Netherlands. Qualitative in-depth interviews with 17 founders (social entrepreneurs, directors and supervisory board members) were conducted. Founders encountered various obstacles that are often related to governmental and sectoral rules and regulations. Their stories demonstrate the opportunities and constraints of innovative entrepreneurship at the intersection of housing and care. The study concludes with the notion of ‘responsible rebellion’ and practical lessons about dealing with rules and regulations and creating supportive contexts. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176235 And atachment "Supplementary Materials" (This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers "Age-Friendly Cities & Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives")
MULTIFILE