Why deinstitutionalisation still matters: Reclaiming a contested horizon in global mental health
- 1Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- 2Instituto de Medicina Social, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- 3Escuela de Salud Pública, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Abstract
Psychiatric deinstitutionalisation (PDI) has re-emerged as an important concern in global mental health in response to the persistence of long-term institutionalisation and human rights abuses in institutions. However, contemporary responses continue to frame reform largely in managerial and technocratic terms, prioritising service coverage, bed reductions, workforce expansion, and scalability. We argue that this framing narrows the meaning of reform and its capacity to address the institutional, political, and social conditions through which psychiatric care is organised. Drawing on critical perspectives on PDI and experiences from South America, we show how PDI has developed through distinct relationships between institutional transformation, democratisation, social mobilisation, and citizenship. These trajectories illuminate contemporary dilemmas such as transinstitutionalisation, fragmented systems of care, and the persistence of segregationist and custodial logics within community settings. We propose three lenses for re-engaging with PDI as an ongoing political and ethical project: attending to context and history, decentring dominant geographies of reform, and foregrounding lived experience. Together, these lenses shift attention towards the sites where reform is actually produced—across research, policy, training, activism, and governance— and highlight the contribution of South American experiences to ongoing debates on institutional transformation.
Related
- Reclaiming the new era in global health: A proposal for an equity-centered paradigm
- A quiet gap: why private equity in primary care remains under-researched in the global south, and why that matters
- Beyond reproduction: Reclaiming the full meaning of sexual and reproductive health
- Phenomenology and the ethics of dying: reclaiming the lived meaning of death in contemporary clinical practice in South Asia - a narrative review.
- Reclaiming human clinical reasoning in generative AI-enabled healthcare: a perspective on cognitive agency, skill evolution, and accountability
BibTeX
@article{montenegro2026deinstitutionalisation,
title = {{Why deinstitutionalisation still matters: Reclaiming a contested horizon in global mental health}},
author = {Cristian Montenegro and Felipe Szabzon and Sofía Bowen and Delia da Mosto},
journal = {PLOS Mental Health},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pmen.0000699},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000699},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Why deinstitutionalisation still matters: Reclaiming a contested horizon in global mental health
AU - Cristian Montenegro
AU - Felipe Szabzon
AU - Sofía Bowen
AU - Delia da Mosto
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
JO - PLOS Mental Health
DO - 10.1371/journal.pmen.0000699
UR - https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000699
AB - Psychiatric deinstitutionalisation (PDI) has re-emerged as an important concern in global mental health in response to the persistence of long-term institutionalisation and human rights abuses in institutions. However, contemporary responses continue to frame reform largely in managerial and technocratic terms, prioritising service coverage, bed reductions, workforce expansion, and scalability. We argue that this framing narrows the meaning of reform and its capacity to address the institutional, political, and social conditions through which psychiatric care is organised. Drawing on critical perspectives on PDI and experiences from South America, we show how PDI has developed through distinct relationships between institutional transformation, democratisation, social mobilisation, and citizenship. These trajectories illuminate contemporary dilemmas such as transinstitutionalisation, fragmented systems of care, and the persistence of segregationist and custodial logics within community settings. We propose three lenses for re-engaging with PDI as an ongoing political and ethical project: attending to context and history, decentring dominant geographies of reform, and foregrounding lived experience. Together, these lenses shift attention towards the sites where reform is actually produced—across research, policy, training, activism, and governance— and highlight the contribution of South American experiences to ongoing debates on institutional transformation.
SN - 2837-8156
ER -