A historical review of recovery movement and mental health policy : from asylum to community care in UK and Hong Kong

Abstract

Background A psychiatric disorder influences one’s affect, mind and behaviors and psychiatric symptoms, such as disorganized speech, bizarre behaviors, delusion that influence one’s motivation, social interest, independence and self-care. Therefore, society stereotypically labels the mentally ill patients as “weak” and “dangerous”, a special group to be taken care of, treated and controlled. As a result, asylums and institutions become necessary for the mentally ill patients. Reviewing the asylums and institution period, it was shown that the care and treatment was inhuman and very limited. Starting 1950s’, there was a voice criticizing that it violated the patients’ human right to keep them in hospital after they had recovered from the acute stage. Consequently, deinstitutionalization and the community care were developed in this period. These policies also led to the consumer movement in 1970s’. Over time, the mental health policy has changed continuously. However, the stigma from society and the consumer movement were still apparent as shown by various patterns.

Aims This study explores the core factors of the mental health services through systematic historical review of the recovery movement and mental health policy, and intends to find out the important insight to improve the mental health services in Hong Kong.

Methodology This study chooses England as an example since the earliest recovery movement started from England. Before 1997, Hong Kong was a Crown colony, so its mental health policy was influenced by England. This study sets out to review related records and documents, including the literature, journals, government documents, reports, newspapers, yearbooks, files and textbooks. After collecting the information and analyzing the contents, the themes will be integrated to find out the core influence factors of the mental health services.

Results After reviewing the overall history of rehabilitation movement in mental health in England and Hong Kong, it is concluded that the development pathway should focus on “Treatment and Care” and “De-stigmatization”.

Conclusions “Treatment and Care” and “De-stigmatization” are the key influence factors, judging from history of the recovery movement and mental health policy development. Thus, a good mental health service should solve these two problems.