Does deinstitutionalization increase suicide?

Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia South University, Statesboro, GA 30460-8015, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 07/2009; 44(4):1385-405. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00986.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT (1) To test whether public psychiatric bed reduction may increase suicide rates; (2) to investigate whether the supply of private hospital psychiatric beds-separately for not-for-profit and for-profit-can substitute for public bed reduction without increasing suicides; and (3) to examine whether the level of community mental health resources moderates the relationship between public bed reduction and suicide rates.
We examined state-level variation in suicide rates in relation to psychiatric beds and community mental health spending in the United States for the years 1982-1998. We categorize psychiatric beds separately for public, not-for-profit, and for-profit hospitals.
Reduced public psychiatric bed supply was found to increase suicide rates. We found no evidence that not-for-profit or for-profit bed supply compensates for public bed reductions. However, greater community mental health spending buffers the adverse effect of public bed reductions on suicide. We estimate that in 2008, an additional decline in public psychiatric hospital beds would raise suicide rates for almost all states.
Downsizing of public inpatient mental health services may increase suicide rates. Nevertheless, an increase in community mental health funding may be promising.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Hospitals as key actors in health systems face growing pres-sures especially cost cutting and search for costeffective ways to resources management. Downsizing is one of these ways. This study was conducted to identify advantages and disadvantages of different methods of hospital' downsizing. Methods:The search was conducted in databases of Medlib, SID, Pub Med, Science Direct and Google Scholar Meta search engine by keywords of Downsizing, Hospital Downsizing, Hospital Rightsizing, Hospital Restructuring, Staff Downsizing, Hospital Merging, Hospital Reorganization and the Persian equivalents. Resulted 815 articles were studied and refined step by step. Finally, 27 articles were selected for analysis. Results: Five hospital downsizing methods were identified during searching. These methods were reducing the number of employees and beds, outsourcing, integration of hospital units, and the combination of these methods. The most important benefits were cost reduction, increasing patient satisfaction, increasing home care and outpatient services. The most important disadvantage included reducing access, reducing the rate of hospital admissions and increasing employees' workload and dissatisfaction. Conclusion: Each downsizing method has strengths and weaknesses. Using different methods of downsizing, according to circumstances and applying appropriate interventions after implementation, is necessary for promotion.
    01/2013; 3(2):276-287. DOI:10.5681/hpp.2013.032
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traditional welfare states were based on passive solidarity. Able bodied, healthy minded citizens paid taxes and social premiums, usually according to a progressive taxation logic following the ability to pay principle. Elderly, fragile, weak, unhealthy and disabled citizens were taken care of in institutions, usually in quiet parts of the country (hills, woods, sea side). During the nineteen eighties and nineties of the twentieth century, ideas changed. Professionals, patients and policy makers felt that it would be better for the weak and fragile to live in mainstream society, rather than be taken care of in institutions outside society. This might be cheaper too. Hence policy measures were taken to accomplish deinstitutionalization. This article discusses the implications of deinstitutionalization for distributive justice. It is argued that the weakest among the weak and fragile stand to lose from this operation. For able bodied citizens deinstitutionalization entails a move from passive to active solidarity. Rather than just pay taxes they have to actively care for and help the needy themselves. The move from passive to active solidarity tends to take advantage of benevolent citizens and burden the socioeconomically disadvantaged. This may be a reason to reconsider the policy move toward deinstitutionalization.
    Health Care Analysis 08/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10728-013-0260-5 · 1.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Before psychiatry emerged as a medical discipline, hospitalizing individuals with mental disorders was more of a social stigmatizing act than a therapeutic act. After the birth of the mental health disciplines, psychiatric hospitalization was legitimized and has proven to be indispensable, preventing suicides and helping individuals in need. However, despite more than a century passing since this legitimization occurred, psychiatric hospitalization remains a controversial issue. There is the question of possible negative outcomes after a psychiatric admission ceases to take its protective effect, and even of whether the psychiatric admission itself is related to a negative setback after discharge. This review aims to summarize some of the most important negative outcomes after discharge from a psychiatric institution. These experiences were organized into two groups: those after a brief psychiatric hospitalization, and those after a long-stay admission. The author further suggests possible ways to minimize these adversities, emphasizing the need of awareness related to this important issue.
    Psychology Research and Behavior Management 04/2014; 7:137-145. DOI:10.2147/PRBM.S35061


Available from