The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the clubhouse model and its capacity to assist people with severe mental illness.
Method:
The paper uses a sample vignette (with all identifying information removed) and survey of literature describing clubhouses over the last 15 years.
Results:
Strengths of the clubhouse model include its ability to provide a safe environment, supportive relationships and supported employment activities. Criticisms include its failure to provide onsite psychiatry clinics and a risk of promoting service dependence.
Conclusions:
Modern clubhouses continue to provide useful models of psychiatric rehabilitation which are popular worldwide. Studying and describing the model is challenging due to its complexity. Mixed methodological approaches and recovery-orientated measurement tools may assist future research and development.
MowbrayCTLewandowskiLHolterMBybeeD. The clubhouse as an empowering setting. Health & Social Work2006; 31: 167–179.
2.
McKayCEYatesBTJohnsenM. Costs of Clubhouses: An International Perspective. Adm Policy Ment Health2007; 34: 62–72.
3.
International Center for Clubhouse Development. International Center for Clubhouse Development. Available at: www.iccd.org (2012, accessed 21 June 2013).
4.
DudekKJAquilaR. Fountain house and recovery centers. Psychiatric Services2012; 63: 396.
5.
OadesLDeaneFCroweT. Collaborative recovery: an integrative model for working with individuals who experience chronic and recurring mental illness. Australas Psychiatry2005; 13: 279–284.
6.
NormanC. The Fountain House movement, an alternative rehabilitation model for people with mental health problems, members’ descriptions of what works. Scand J Caring Sci2006; 20: 184–192.
7.
CorriganPWPhelanSM. Social support and recovery in people with serious mental illnesses. Community Ment Health J2004; 40: 513–523.
8.
SteinLIBarryKLDienGV. Work and social support: a comparison of consumers who have achieved stability in ACT and clubhouse programs. Community Ment Health J1999; 35: 193–204.
9.
WongKF. Implementation of Clubhouse Model programme: perception of mental health nurses. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs2010; 17: 750–753.
10.
MaciasCRodicanCFHargreavesWA. Supported employment outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of ACT and clubhouse models. Psychiatr Serv2006; 57: 1406–1415.
11.
CookJARazzanoLABurke-MillerJK. Effects of co-occurring disorders on employment outcomes in a multisite randomized study of supported employment for people with severe mental illness. J Rehabil Res Dev2007; 44: 837.
12.
StaplesLSteinR. The clubhouse model: mental health consumer–provider partnerships for recovery. Adv Med Sociol2008; 10: 177–196.
13.
SalkeverDS. Policy priorities and shifting sands in the supported employment evidence base. Psychiatry Online2006; 57: 1440.
14.
MaciasCJacksonRSchroederC. Brief report. What is a clubhouse? Report on the ICCD 1996 survey of USA clubhouses. Commun Ment Health J1999; 35: 181–190.
15.
HindenBWolfTBiebelK. Supporting clubhouse members in their role as parents: necessary conditions for policy and practice initiatives. Psychiatr Rehabil J2009; 33: 98–105.
16.
HolmesAHodgeMLentenS. Chronic mental illness and community treatment resistance. Australas Psychiatry2006; 14: 272–276.
17.
GregitisSGlackenJJulianC. Comparing working role values of employed and unemployed Clubhouse members. Work2010; 36: 39–46.
18.
AquilaRMalamudTJSweetT. The Store Front, Fountain House, and the Rehabilitation Alliance. MedGenMed2006; 8: 67.
19.
KightleyMEinfeldSHancockN. Routine outcome measurement in mental health: feasibility for examining effectiveness of an NGO. Australas Psychiatry2010; 18: 167–169.
20.
CookJALeffHSBlylerCR. Results of a multisite randomized trial of supported employment interventions for individuals with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry2005; 62: 505.
21.
CrowtherREMarshallMBondGR. Helping people with severe mental illness to obtain work: systematic review. BMJ2001; 322: 204–208.
22.
CreswellJWFettersMDIvankovaNV. Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med2004; 2: 7–12.
23.
BurgessPPirkisJCoombsT. Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services. Aust N Z J Psychiatry2011; 45: 267–280.
