Dataset Information

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors' Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness and a serious threat to public health and well-being.

Objective

To determine whether the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model improves safety, housing stability, and mental health over 2 years.

Design, setting, and participants

This longitudinal comparative effectiveness study interviewed IPV survivors and reviewed their agency records. All unstably housed or homeless IPV survivors entering domestic violence (DV) services were eligible to participate in the study, ensuring capture of typical variability in service delivery (eg, some survivors would enter services when agencies had the capacity to provide DVHF and others would receive services as usual [SAU]). Clients from 5 DV agencies (3 rural and 2 urban) referred by agency staff in a Pacific Northwest state of the United States were assessed between July 17, 2017, and July 16, 2021. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish at entry into services (baseline) and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits. The DVHF model was compared with SAU. The baseline sample included 406 survivors (92.7% of 438 eligible). Of the 375 participants retained at the 6-month follow-up (92.4% retention), 344 had received services and had complete data across all outcomes. Three hundred sixty-three participants (89.4%) were retained at the 24-month follow-up.

Intervention

The DVHF model has 2 components: housing-inclusive advocacy and flexible funding.

Main outcomes and measures

Main outcomes included housing stability, safety, and mental health, which were assessed using standardized measures.

Results

Of the 344 participants (mean [SD] age, 34.6 [9.0] years) included in the analyses, 219 (63.7%) received DVHF and 125 (36.3%) received SAU. Most participants identified as female (334 [97.1%]) and heterosexual (299 [86.9%]). Two hundred twenty-one participants (64.2%) were from a racial and ethnic minority group. Longitudinal linear mixed-effects models showed that receiving SAU was associated with greater housing instability (mean difference, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.42-1.14]), DV exposure (mean difference, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.05-0.26]), depression (mean difference, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.27-2.43]), anxiety (mean difference, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.11-2.19]), and posttraumatic stress disorder (mean difference, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.04-1.04]) compared with receiving the DVHF model.

Conclusions and relevance

Evidence in this comparative effectiveness study suggests that the DVHF model was more effective than SAU in improving the housing stability, safety, and mental health of survivors of IPV. The DVHF's amelioration of all of these interconnected public health issues-relatively quickly and with long-term continuance-will be of substantial interest to DV agencies and others working to support unstably housed IPV survivors.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10293912 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors' Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years.

Sullivan Cris M CM Simmons Cortney C Guerrero Mayra M Farero Adam A López-Zerón Gabriela G Ayeni Oyesola Oluwafunmilayo OO Chiaramonte Danielle D Sprecher Mackenzie M Fernandez Aileen I AI

JAMA network open 20230601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness and a serious threat to public health and well-being.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model improves safety, housing stability, and mental health over 2 years.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This longitudinal comparative effectiveness study interviewed IPV survivors and reviewed their agency records. All unstably housed or homeless IPV survivors enterin ...[more]

PMID: 37358850

Similar Datasets

Project description:Using data from an ongoing longitudinal study, we examined the impact of the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on a racially diverse population of unstably housed domestic violence (DV) survivors over time. Specifically, we examined survivors' safety, housing stability, and mental health before, during, and after the onset of COVID-19, and how demographic, social, and familial factors attenuated or exacerbated the effect of the stay-at-home orders. Approximately 300 participants were initially interviewed after they sought services from a DV agency, and then again, every 6 months over 2 years. COVID-19 stay-at-home orders occurred midway through the completion of this multi-year study. Longitudinal mixed effects models were estimated to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the safety, housing stability, and mental health of survivors over time. We also examined models with several time-varying (e.g., employment, income, social support, and number of children) and time-invariant (baseline outcome scores, racial/ethnic identity, education, and disability status) control variables. Results revealed that safety, housing stability and mental health were improving for study participants before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic but plateaued after the stay-at-home orders were issued. Experiences of abuse, housing instability, and mental health symptomatology did not worsen as a result of the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Notably, social support and housing services emerged as important predictors of outcomes, such that participants who received housing-related services and greater social support reported less abuse, less housing instability, and lower mental health distress. COVID-19 temporarily disrupted the positive trajectory unstably housed DV survivors were experiencing in regard to safety, housing stability and mental health. These findings provide critical insight into the importance of service access during and after global catastrophes. Additional resources and support may be helpful in assisting survivors to return to their pre-pandemic recovery and growth trajectories.

Project description:ObjectiveThere is scant research on the effectiveness of permanent supportive housing for homeless women with mental illness. This study examines the effectiveness of Housing First with an unprecedentedly large sample of homeless women from five Canadian cities, and explore baseline risk factors that predict social, health and well-being outcomes over a 24 month-period.MethodsThe At Home/Chez Soi multi-site randomized controlled Housing First trial recruited over 600 women between October 2009 and July 2011. This is a post-hoc subgroup exploratory analysis of self-identified women with at least one follow-up interview who were randomized to Housing First (HF) (n = 374) or treatment-as-usual (TAU) (n = 279) and had at least one follow-up interview. Linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations were used after multiple imputation was applied to address missing data.ResultsAt the end of follow-up, the mean percentage of days spent stably housed was higher for women in the intervention 74.8% (95%CI = 71.7%-77.8%) compared with women in the treatment-as-usual group, 37.9% (95%CI = 34.4%-41.3%), p<0.001. With few exceptions, social and mental health outcomes were similar for both groups at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months post-enrollment. Suicidality was a consistent predictor of increased mental health symptoms (beta = 2.85, 95% CI 1.59-4.11, p<0.001), decreased quality of life (beta = -3.99, 95% CI -6.49 to -1.49, p<0.001), decreased community functioning (beta = -1.16, 95% CI -2.10 to -0.22, p = 0.015) and more emergency department visits (rate ratio = 1.44, 95% CI 1.10-1.87, p<0.001) over the study period. Lower education was a predictor of lower community functioning (beta = -1.32, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.37, p = 0.006) and higher substance use problems (rate ratio = 1.27, 95% CI 1.06-1.52, p = 0.009) during the study.ConclusionsHousing First interventions ensured that women experiencing homelessness are quickly and consistently stably housed. However, they did not differentially impact health and social measures compared to treatment as usual. Ensuring positive health and social outcomes may require greater supports at enrolment for subgroups such as those with low educational attainment, and additional attention to severity of baseline mental health challenges, such as suicidality.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Control Trial Number Register Identifier: ISRCTN42520374.

Project description:In laboratory animal facilities, it is a common code of practice to house female mice in groups. However, some experimental conditions require to house them individually, even though social isolation may impair their well-being. Therefore, we introduced a separated pair housing system and investigated whether it can refine single housing of adult female C57BL/6JRj mice. Individually ventilated cages (IVC) were divided by perforated transparent walls to separate two mice within a cage. The cage divider allowed visual, acoustic, and olfactory contact between the mice but prevented interindividual body-contact or food sharing. Short- and long-term effects of the separated pair housing system on the well-being of the mice were compared with single and group housing using a range of behavioral and physiological parameters: Nest building behavior was assessed based on the complexity of nests, the burrowing performance was measured by the amount of food pellets removed from a bottle, and trait anxiety-related behavior was tested in the free exploratory paradigm. For the evaluation of the ease of handling, interaction with the experimenter's hand was monitored. Social interaction with unknown conspecifics and locomotor activity were investigated in a test arena. Moreover, body weight and stress hormone (metabolites) were measured in feces and hair. After the mice spent a day under the respective housing conditions, concentrations of fecal corticosterone metabolites were higher in separated pair-housed mice, and they built nests of a higher complexity when compared to single-housed mice. The latter effect was still observable eight weeks later. In week 8, separated pair-housed mice showed less locomotor activity in the social interaction arena compared to mice from the other housing systems, i.e., single and group housing. Regardless of the time of testing, pair housing improved the burrowing performance. Separated pair-housed mice were more difficult to catch than group-housed mice. Hair corticosterone, progesterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone concentrations changed with increasing age independently of the housing system. There were no effects of the housing systems on trait anxiety-related behavior in the free exploratory paradigm, voluntary interaction with the experimenter's hand, and body weight. Overall, the transfer to the separated pair housing system caused short-term stress responses in female C57BL/6JRj mice. Long-term effects of separated pair housing were ambiguous. On one hand, separated pair housing increased nesting and burrowing behavior and may therefore be beneficial compared to single housing. But on the other hand, locomotor activity decreased. The study underlined that the effects of the housing conditions on physiological and behavioral parameters should be considered when analyzing and reporting animal experiments.

Project description:Background: In different parts of the world new models of senior housing have rapidly appeared, which indicates that existing housing and care models are not fulfilling the hopes and needs of current and new generations of older people. Material and Methods: This qualitative study focuses on one type of communal senior housing complex located in a mid-sized town in Central Finland. The complex was designed to have accessible low-maintenance apartments and common spaces, and to be near easily accessible green spaces, amenities, services, and public transport. The complex has a part-time community coordinator. The minimum age limit is set at 55 years. The data consists of 36 qualitative interviews with residents (21 women, 15 men) aged 66-93, conducted between November 2018 and February 2019. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data analysis focused on how different aspects of the manmade, natural, and social environment were portrayed in residents' descriptions of day-to-day life. Theoretical framework adopted for the study draws from the ideas of environmental and geographic gerontology. The data was analyzed using positioning analysis which is one form of discourse analysis. Results: The senior housing in this study fulfilled its promise of providing accessible a physical and social environment which encourages and enables residents to be physically active and independent, yet which also provides social activities and feeling safe. In this respect, the senior housing complex offered an environment which supports well-being and healthy aging. However, the residents' interpretations of what the senior housing complex represented varied. For some of the residents it was first and foremost a social place, which provided opportunities for social contacts and social activities. For some of the residents the most important were maintenance-free apartments and outdoor areas. The question remains as to how social practices, in the form of government policies and market systems can support the development of different kinds of senior housing which are affordable and accessible for all.

Dataset Information

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors' Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Intervention

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors' Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets