Mental Hospitals in India: Reforms for the future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental hospitals are an integral part of mental health services in India. It is an interesting story how mental hospitals have responded to the challenges of contemporary period they were built in. It is beyond doubt that it is a progressive journey along with advances in mental health both in India and internationally. As in other countries, mental hospitals in India have responded to the social challenges, disparities, and poor resources of workforce and fiscal investment. Historically, there have been changes and three major reforms are needed, namely attempt to facilitate discharge and placing patients back into the family, introducing teaching and research in mental hospitals, and accountability to civil rights as per the requirements of the National Human Rights Commission. In this review, we explore the brief history of mental hospitals in India and examine the reforms in the clinical, administrative, and psychosocial areas of these hospitals and progress in teaching and research. We finally summarize and conclude the necessity and the relevance of mental hospitals in India akin to modern psychiatric practice. We believe that mental hospitals have an important and perhaps a central role in mental health services in India. Its modernization to address issues of long-term stay, burden on caregivers, stigma, research and teaching including undergraduate and postgraduate training, new curriculum, and training for nonpsychiatric professionals and primary care physicians are necessary components of the role of mental hospitals and responsibilities of both government and nongovernmental sectors. Last but not the least, it is obligatory for mental hospitals to ensure that evidence-based treatments are implemented and that the standard of care and respect of civil and human rights of the patients and families are provided while involving the people's participation in its functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".