Article

Geographic access to and availability of community resources for persons diagnosed with severe mental illness in Philadelphia, USA

Department of Health Policy & Public Health, University of the Sciences. 600S. 43rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4495, USA.
Health & Place (Impact Factor: 2.44). 01/2012; 18(3):621-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.12.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study assesses whether there are differences in geographic access to and availability of a range of different amenities for a large group of persons diagnosed with severe mental illness (SMI) in Philadelphia (USA) when compared to a more general set of residential addresses. The 15,246 persons who comprised the study group had better outcomes than an equal number of geographical points representative of the general Philadelphia population on measures of geographic proximity and availability for resources considered important by people diagnosed with SMI. These findings provide support for the presence of geographic prerequisites for attaining meaningful levels of community integration.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Janet Prvu Bettger, Mar 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
104 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health emphasizes the importance of assessing the impact of environmental factors on functioning and disability. Drawing on this emphasis, this study used a set of objective measures to compare the characteristics of neighborhoods of adults with serious mental illness and of the general population. It also examined the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and neighborhood concentration of persons with serious mental illness. METHODS The sample comprised 15,246 adults who were treated for serious mental illness in Philadelphia between 1997 and 2000. Principal-components analysis of 22 neighborhood characteristics resulted in an ideal-factor solution of six components. The mean values of each component in neighborhoods of persons with serious mental illness were compared with values in an equally sized group of neighborhoods created by randomly generated addresses representative of the city's general population. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to assess the association between neighborhood characteristics and neighborhood concentration of persons with serious mental illness. RESULTS Neighborhoods in which adults with serious mental illness resided had higher levels of physical and structural inadequacy, drug-related activity, and crime than comparison neighborhoods. Higher levels of physical and structural inadequacy, crime, drug-related activity, social instability, and social isolation were associated with higher concentration of persons with serious mental illness in the neighborhood's adult population. CONCLUSIONS The differences in neighborhood characteristics identified in this study point to factors that merit closer attention as potential barriers or facilitators in the functioning, participation, and community integration of persons with serious mental illness.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 05/2013; 64(8). DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.201200365 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measures of community integration rely on self-report assessments that often quantify physical or social participation, but fail to capture the individual's spatial presence in the community. The current study documents the activity space, or area of daily experiences, of 37 individuals who were once homeless through participatory mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Contrary to expectations, there was no significant relationship between activity space size and community integration measures, except a negative association with physical integration. Further analysis revealed, however, that continued use of homeless services, geographically spread throughout the city, was associated with larger activity space size, but may be counterproductive to social and psychological integration efforts. Analysis of the types of locations identified revealed high importance given to leisure locations and ongoing involvement with medical and mental health locations. Finally, community integration outcomes did not differ significantly by demographics or housing type, but rather degree of family involvement and feeling like home, factors that may have more potential for change.
    Health & Place 05/2014; 27. DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.12.011 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although a desired rehabilitation goal, research continues to document that community integration significantly lags behind housing stability success rates for people of a variety of ages who used to be homeless. While accessibility to resources is an environmental factor that may promote or impede integration activity, there has been little empirical investigation into the impact of proximity of community features on resource use and integration. Using a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approach, the current study examines how accessibility or proximity to community features in Boston, United States related to the types of locations used and the size of an individual's “activity space,” or spatial presence in the community. Significant findings include an inverse relationship between activity space size and proximity to the number and type of community features in one's immediate area. Specifically, larger activity spaces were associated with neighborhoods with less community features, and smaller activity spaces corresponded with greater availability of resources within one's immediate area. Activity space size also varied, however, based on proximity to different types of resources, namely transportation and health care. Greater community function, or the ability to navigate and use community resources, was associated with better accessibility and feeling part of the community. Finally, proximity to a greater number of individual identified preferred community features was associated with better social integration. The current study suggests the ongoing challenges of successful integration may vary not just based on accessibility to, but relative importance of, specific community features and affinity with one's surroundings. Community integration researchers and housing providers may need to attend to the meaning attached to resources, not just presence or use in the community.
    Social Science & Medicine 09/2014; 120:142–152. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.005 · 2.56 Impact Factor