THE ASSESSMENT OF REHABILITATION CENTERS IN NIGERIA: Accessibility, Presence and Impact.

Written by: Segunfunmi Adetunji-Lamidi

Abstract
Rehabilitation services, which include mental-health care, substance-use treatment and functional/physical rehabilitation, are essential for restoring people’s ability to work, relate and participate fully in family and community life. Mental health is not limited to addiction or acute psychosis; it includes common diagnostic conditions (anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder) and pervasive, function-limiting patterns such as chronic low self-esteem, perfectionism and obsessive drives that degrade daily functioning. Across Africa, including Nigeria, supply of rehabilitation services is highly uneven: multidisciplinary, rights-based programs produce measurable recovery in pockets, while many facilities (public, private, and faith-based) operate with poor oversight and sometimes harmful practices such as over-sedation, coercion and neglect. There is robust evidence that over-reliance on sedating antipsychotics as a behavioral control harms cognition and movement and increases medical risks; conversely, psychosocial strategies (peer support, vulnerability groups, community-based rehabilitation and social-network interventions) improve engagement, empowerment and functional outcomes but remain under-scaled. Policy action should remove coercive practices, curb inappropriate medication use, scale peer-led and community models, and subsidize access so rehabilitation restores whole lives rather than only subdue symptoms.

1. Why this matters: who really needs rehabilitation and why?

Too many conversations about “rehab” narrow the idea to addiction wards or dramatic, obvious crises. That narrowness is dangerous. Mental health reaches into the daily architecture of how people think, feel, relate and work. It includes classical diagnoses like major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, but also a vast grey zone of persistent, function-limiting patterns: low self-esteem that prevents risk-taking and economic participation; perfectionism that erodes relationships and productivity; chronic rumination and obsessive drives that disrupt sleep, parenting and decision-making. Anything that meaningfully degrades a person’s emotional, cognitive or social functioning is a mental-health problem, and therefore a legitimate target for rehabilitation. If systems only treat the visibly severe, they will leave a vastly larger number of people unguided, untreated, and at risk of deterioration, which in turn affects the state of our society. 

In African family systems, where obligations, reputation and communal roles are central, mental-health problems ripple across households. A parent’s untreated depression affects child nutrition, schooling, and safety; a young adult’s anxiety about failure shapes career trajectories; untreated substance use often coexists with trauma and family dysfunction. Rehabilitation, properly conceived, is not an optional specialty tucked away in hospitals. It is foundational public-health work that preserves social cohesion and sustains economic participation. Its reach must go far beyond government clinics, private wards or faith-based homes: rehabilitation should be woven into everyday life, practiced in our families, taught in our schools, and upheld by community networks, so that support for recovery becomes ordinary and accessible rather than exceptional. When families and schools detect distress early, when neighbors and peer groups offer structured support, and when community institutions normalize help-seeking and skills-building, the burden on formal services is reduced and outcomes improve. In short, restoring wellbeing is a shared civic responsibility: scaling rehabilitation means shifting some of the work from overburdened institutions into the social fabric that surrounds each person. A society that will prosper must prioritize social impact such as this. Addressing only the tip of the iceberg leaves the rest to fester, and slowly destroys our society. 

2. Presence in Nigeria and Africa: there are centers, but they don’t guarantee coverage

Nigeria’s landscape includes federal neuropsychiatric hospitals, psychiatric units in several teaching hospitals, NDLEA-sponsored drug-treatment centers, private clinics and a sprawling mix of faith-based and NGO initiatives. Some government programs have expanded capacity (for example, high-profile NDLEA initiatives), but there is no single, reliable national registry that lists every public, private and faith-based rehabilitation provider. Available evidence and audits show a heavy urban concentration (Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt, Enugu), with rural communities largely dependent on limited community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programs or traditional/religious providers. In short: centres exist, but presence don’t equate coverage. Geographic distribution, workforce density and facility capacity fall far short of the population need.

3. Accessibility: who can actually use these services?

1. Geographic accessibility: Specialist services cluster in cities. For a person in a rural town, accessing an outpatient program or inpatient rehabilitation often requires travel time, transport costs and time away from income-generating work and these are barriers that effectively exclude many from the benefits of rehabilitation. WHO regional reporting highlights this urban bias across Africa.
2. Financial accessibility: Many rehabilitation programs (especially private or NGO residential homes) require out-of-pocket payments that are quite more than average household incomes. Public options are limited, often over-subscribed and highly congested. Without subsidies, vouchers or insurance coverage, sustained high-quality rehabilitation remains unaffordable for most families, which is why integrating psychotherapy into insurance schemes would have huge impact. This economic barrier shapes the choices families make, sometimes pushing them toward cheaper but unregulated and unprofessional alternatives that might end up exacerbating the condition rather than alleviating it. 
3. Cultural & social accessibility: Stigma and local explanatory models (spiritual causes, moral frames) influence where people seek help. Families may prioritize religious healing or confinement in a faith-based rehab home because of cultural acceptability or hope for quick miracles, even when clinical care might posit to be more appropriate. Also, the prevalent belief that the supernatural contravenes the clinical has plunged many into seeking religious attention rather than clinical professionalism. These dynamics create delays in receiving evidence-based interventions.

4. How rehabilitation centers typically function (modus operandi): the ideal vs. the routine

• Ideal model (what rehabilitation should do).

1. Comprehensive intake and diagnosis (medical, psychiatric, psychosocial).
2. Multidisciplinary care plan: evidence-based psychotherapy/counselling, medication when indicated and monitored, physical/occupational therapy where needed, family involvement, and vocational reintegration.
3. Structured, time-limited residential or outpatient interventions with measurable goals and follow-up.
4. Community reintegration supports (job training, peer groups, housing support) and relapse prevention.

• Common real-world patterns.

1. Well-run pockets: Some tertiary hospitals and accredited programs are close to the ideal by possessing multidisciplinary teams, documented outcomes, follow-up and reintegration supports. These programs demonstrate improved functioning and reduced relapse when implemented fully.
2. Under-resourced clinics: Many facilities operate with skeletal teams (one or two clinicians, few allied therapists) and limited documentation or outcome tracking. Care is often medication-heavy and psychosocial support is extremely minimal.
3. Unregulated homes / faith-based centers: In some of these settings, the approach centers on confinement, spiritual interventions (prayer and deliverance), and limited clinical oversight. Record keeping and consent procedures are often absent. Reports show that in the worst cases, confinement can be abusive.
4. Medication practices: relief, risk, or both?

Medicines are essential for many conditions. But patterns of use matter enormously.

• What the evidence shows about harm: Antipsychotics and sedating psychotropics can cause a range of adverse effects: marked sedation and cognitive blunting, extrapyramidal symptoms (acute dystonia, akathisia, drug-induced parkinsonism), tardive dyskinesia, metabolic syndrome (weight gain, diabetes, cardiovascular risk) and other harms. Recent reviews and clinical guidance stress that antipsychotics are not cognitive enhancers; in some populations (especially older adults or where monitoring is poor) they are associated with cognitive decline and movement disorders if misused. First-generation antipsychotics in particular carry high risk of motor side effects; in many low-resource settings these older, cheaper drugs remain common. 
• Why sedation as behavior control is harmful: When sedating medications are used primarily to quiet or restrain people, because staffing is limited or to simplify supervision, the effect may be short-term calm but with long-term damage. Heavy sedation and chronic polypharmacy can blunt cognition and motivation, impair speech and movement, create metabolic and neurological complications, and thereby reduce a person’s capacity to engage in therapy, learn coping skills or regain social and occupational roles. In other words: sedating someone to “manage” behavior may convert a treatable problem into a chronic disability, or introduce new iatrogenic problems the patient must now face (movement disorders, cognitive impairment, metabolic disease).
• Is this happening in Nigeria/Africa? Audits and field reports show routine use of older antipsychotics and manifest polypharmacy in many low-resource facilities where monitoring is limited. Investigative reporting and rights audits document settings where medication is used as an instrument of control rather than as part of a measured therapeutic plan. These patterns correlate with poor functional outcomes in those settings, and is more proof that mental health care in this clime is void of compassion and empathy, but rather lackadaisically elicited.

6. Alternatives and complements: vulnerability groups, intimate friendships, peer support, and community models

• Why social connection matters: Social support, peer relationships and structured group work (vulnerability or recovery groups) are central to recovery. Systematic reviews and trials show that peer-led groups and structured social-participation interventions improve empowerment, hope, self-efficacy, engagement with services and social inclusion, which are key drivers of functional recovery. As a matter of fact, statistics show that regular attendants of church communities tend to suffer less cases of mental health issues owing to the social connection usually facilitated amongst the congregants of these gatherings. Peer support workers (people with lived experience) often excel at promoting recovery outcomes such as hope and social reintegration. 
• Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) and peer models: CBR and peer-led recovery models are recommended by WHO and have been adapted successfully across low- and middle-income settings. Trials and implementation studies (UPSIDES, PRIZE and other pilots) show peer support can be delivered safely and effectively when adapted to local contexts, with improvements in engagement and social outcomes. 
• Reality in Nigeria/Africa: Despite promising evidence, peer-led and social-network interventions are under-scaled in many African settings because of funding limits, workforce shortages, stigma, and human beliefs, and dominant biomedical or spiritual explanatory models. Where they are implemented, often in NGO or pilot programs, they produce better engagement and empower service users, but these programs are not yet the norm in most facilities. 
• Practical implication: Substituting or complementing sedative-heavy regimens with structured psychosocial programs (vulnerability groups, peer support, family therapy, social skills and vocational training) reduces reliance on medication as the first-line behavior control and promotes durable recovery. Evidence supports scaling these interventions with training, supervision and integration into routine care

7. Do these centers alleviate mental-health problems: Evidence of impact and counter-evidence.

• Where they help: Evaluations of structured, multidisciplinary programs (those with trained staff, evidence-based psychosocial therapies, medication managed according to guidelines, and active reintegration work) show real, measurable improvements in functioning, reduced relapse, and better quality of life. Tele-rehabilitation pilots and task-shifting models have improved reach and cost-effectiveness in several LMIC settings, suggesting scalable possibilities for Nigeria when implemented with proper training and supervision. 
• Where they do not help: Multiple investigations reveal facilities that do not follow clinical standards and may worsen outcomes:

• Over-reliance on sedation or non-therapeutic medication: prescribing patterns in some Nigerian psychiatric settings indicate heavy use of older antipsychotics and sedatives, sometimes in polypharmacy regimens without adequate monitoring. These practices can produce adverse effects (movement disorders, cognitive blunting, cardiovascular issues) and may mask rather than treat underlying problems. 
• Masking vs treating: Medication-dominant programs that prioritize sedation can mask symptoms temporarily, while underlying psychosocial drivers (trauma, poverty, social isolation) remain unaddressed, leading to relapse or chronic disability
• Unregulated, coercive settings: chained patients, sexual violence, physical abuse and prolonged, punitive confinement have been documented; these practices cause trauma, medical complications, and social exclusion rather than rehabilitation. 
• Low intensity of psychosocial rehabilitation: many centers emphasize confinement and short-term detox rather than sustained psychosocial support, skills training and community reintegration. The result can be short-term “calming” followed by relapse. 
• Financial and logistical drop-off: families who cannot afford follow-up or who face transport/ stigma barriers often discontinue care, undermining long-term outcomes. 

So: rehabilitation centers do help, but only when they operate with adequate staff, rights-based practices, integrated psychosocial work and continuity of care. Many centers fall short of these standards, and that shortfall explains why some programs seem merely symbolic or even harmful.

8. Common strategies used by centers (and why some fail)

Strategies that work (when implemented properly):

• Multidisciplinary teams with clear roles and documented care pathways.
• Structured psychosocial interventions (CBT, motivational interviewing, family therapy).
• Medication used according to guidelines with monitoring and side-effect management.
• Vocational and social reintegration programs that target functional outcomes.
• Community outreach and peer-support networks to maintain gains.

Strategies that fail or backfire:

• Reliance on punitive confinement or spiritual “cures” without clinical oversight.
• Routine sedative polypharmacy as the primary behavior control strategy.
• Short inpatient detox without linkages to long-term counselling or livelihood support.
• No tracking of outcomes, so programs cannot learn or improve.

Failure is frequently not intentional; it is rooted in workforce scarcity, lack of regulation, insufficient funding and cultural pressures that prioritize quick fixes.

9. Ethical and clinical red flags to watch for

• Use of prolonged restraint or chaining. 
• Reports of physical or sexual violence. 
• Routine polypharmacy and high-dose antipsychotic regimens without documented indications or monitoring. 
• Absence of documented psychosocial rehabilitation or vocational reintegration plans (only detention or prayer). 

These practices are not only unethical; they undermine long-term recovery.

10. Recommendations: Shift practice away from sedation toward social recovery

1. Limit sedating medication as a primary behavior-control tool: Enforce prescribing guidelines, require documented indications and monitoring for antipsychotics, and prioritize less-sedating alternatives where clinically possible. Audit prescribing patterns and retrain prescribers in psychopharmacology and deprescribing. 
2. Scale peer support and vulnerability groups: Fund and mainstream peer-led recovery groups, vulnerability circles and structured social-skills programs; train and supervise peer support workers as integral members of care teams. Evidence shows these approaches boost hope, empowerment and social reintegration. 
3. Invest in community-based rehabilitation and task-sharing: Build capacity for community rehabilitation workers who can deliver psychosocial interventions and link clients to social supports, reducing unnecessary hospitalization and medication overuse. 
4. Create a national registry, inspection regime and public reporting: Map all providers, set minimum staffing and human-rights standards, and publish facility information so families can choose safe services. 
5. Subsidize access and continuity: Use vouchers, insurance or targeted subsidies to ensure families can afford not just inpatient detox but long-term counselling, peer groups and vocational supports. 
6. Measure what matters: Track functional outcomes (work, relationships, social participation), not only short-term symptom suppression, and require outcomes reporting from funded centres.

11. Conclusion 

Rehabilitation has enormous potential to restore dignity, function and social ties. In Nigeria and across Africa there are genuine successes, but they are outnumbered by gaps and, in too many cases, by harmful practices that betray the name “rehabilitation.” The path forward is clear: regulate, invest in people (workforce), subsidize access, and reorient programs toward psychosocial recovery and reintegration. If we expand what we mean by “mental health” to include the everyday emotional and cognitive struggles that limit millions such as low self-esteem, perfectionism, chronic anxiety, then the scale of the task grows, but so does the moral imperative. Rehabilitation must be about restoring whole lives, not merely subduing symptoms.

References 

Agbonile, I. O. (2009). Psychotropic drug prescribing in a Nigerian psychiatric hospital. Retrieved from PubMed Central. 

Human Rights Watch. (2019, November 11). Nigeria: People with mental health conditions chained, locked, abused. Human Rights Watch. 

Ilomuanya, M. (2022). Direct medical cost of treating substance use disorders in Nigeria. Journal/PMC. 

Nizeyimana, E., et al. (2022). A scoping review of feasibility, cost, access to rehabilitation services and implementation of telerehabilitation. PMC. 

NDLEA creates 30 rehabilitation centres to address drug abuse menace. The Punch (2024). 

ONIFADE, P. O. A descriptive survey of substance abuse treatment centers in Nigeria. (survey manuscript). 

World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa. (2023). Increasing access to quality rehabilitation services in Africa. WHO-AFRO. 

World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa. (2025). Regional strategy to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems 2025–2035. WHO-AFRO. 

WHO. Mental health: strengthening our response (WHO fact sheet / Mental Health Atlas 2024). 

Lungu, P. F., et al. (2024). The effect of antipsychotics on cognition in schizophrenia. PMC. 

Stroup, T. S., et al. (2018). Management of common adverse effects of antipsychotics. PMC. 

Human Rights Watch. (2019). Nigeria: People with mental health conditions chained, locked and abused. 

Lyons, N., et al. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions. BMC Psychiatry. 

Puschner, B., et al. (2019). Using peer support in developing empowering mental health services. Annals of Global Health. 

Butura, A. M., et al. (2024). Community-based rehabilitation for people with psychosocial disabilities. IJMHS.