目的：康復之家是職能治療師幫助精障個案回歸社區的重要工作場域，我國康復之家各專業的服務情形以及成效仍不清楚，因此，本研究目的在系統性整理我國康復之家的發展現況，以作為未來革新方向的參考。方法：本文檢索華藝線上圖書館(Airiti Library)、中文電子期刊服務(CEPS)與中文電子學位論文服務(CETD)中至西元2014年5月以及臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統(NDLTD)中至民國102學年度上學期之論文，其關鍵詞為康復之家、社區復健、精神疾病、精神復健、住宿型精神復健機構，並依「康復之家的數量分布與環境特性」、「康復之家的服務模式與意涵」、「康復之家的工作人員」與「康復之家的介入成效」來萃取內容並探討。結果：本回顧共篩選出19篇符合收錄標準之文章。綜言之，康復之家的數量分布仍有不均與不足之現象，而服務模式尚未能充分協助精障個案回歸家庭或社區，且各職類專業人員不一定參與並提供足夠服務；另外，介入成效的研究結果趨勢為康復之家住民生活品質有提升且較住院個案優，然其與社區復健中心及居家治療個案比較的結果則不一致，而各模式之療效仍待探討。結論：我國康復之家的本土化研究闕如，對成效指標之界定仍不明確，缺乏各專業人員實務介入及其成效探討及成本效益分析，有待未來研究持續突破。

Purpose: Psychiatric halfway housing is important for community re-entry in individuals with mental illness. However, the benefits of psychiatric halfway housing have yet to be established. This review provided an overview of the literature pertinent to development of psychiatric halfway house in Taiwan. Methods: The review covered articles published up to May 2014 as retrieved from the Airiti Library, Chinese Electronic Periodical Services (CEPS), Chinese Electronic Theses and Dissertations Service (CETD), and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations(NDLTD). The key words were halfway house, community rehabilitation, psychiatric disorder, psychiatric rehabilitation, and residential institutions for psychiatric rehabilitation. Issues of review interest include the distribution and environmental characteristics of psychiatric halfway house, the service pattern and significance of psychiatric halfway house, the specialists of psychiatric halfway house, and the effects of psychiatric halfway house. Results: Nineteen reports were eligible for inclusion. The review indicated that the distribution of psychiatric halfway house was insufficient and distributed unevenly. In addition, the service pattern of psychiatric halfway house may not be adequate for assisting patients with mental illness to return home or the community. Specialists may not have been adequately allocated to implement sufficient service. Moreover,the results showed a trend for better life quality in psychiatric halfway house residents than in inpatients. There were no consistent reports of the intervention effects on life quality after community rehabilitation center service, outreach care program, and psychiatric halfway house care. Research is needed to validate the potential benefits of these programs and their differential effects.Conclusion: This literature review suggests that the number and arrangement of each specialist should take the quality of rehabilitation into consideration. Local studies of psychiatric halfway house were lacking, and the indicators of intervention effects were still unclear. Future research is needed to study the intervention effectiveness of each specialist and the cost-effectiveness of psychiatric halfway house.