Dataset Information

Comparison of Childbirth Delivery Outcomes and Costs of Care Between Women Experiencing vs Not Experiencing Homelessness.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Women and families constitute the fastest-growing segments of the homeless population. However, there is limited evidence on whether women experiencing homelessness have poorer childbirth delivery outcomes and higher costs of care compared with women not experiencing homelessness.

Objective

To compare childbirth delivery outcomes and costs of care between pregnant women experiencing homelessness vs those not experiencing homelessness.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study included 15 029 pregnant women experiencing homelessness and 308 242 pregnant women not experiencing homelessness who had a delivery hospitalization in 2014. The study used statewide databases that included all hospital admissions in 3 states (ie, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York). Delivery outcomes and delivery-associated costs were compared between pregnant women experiencing homelessness and those not experiencing homelessness cared for at the same hospital (analyzed using the overlap propensity-score weighting method and multivariable regression models with hospital fixed effects). The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure was used to account for multiple comparisons. Data were analyzed from January 2020 through May 2020.

Exposure

Housing status at delivery hospitalization.

Main outcomes and measures

Outcome variables included obstetric complications (ie, antepartum hemorrhage, placental abnormalities, premature rupture of the membranes, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage), neonatal complications (ie, fetal distress, fetal growth restriction, and stillbirth), delivery method (ie, cesarean delivery), and delivery-associated costs.

Results

Among 15 029 pregnant women experiencing homelessness (mean [SD] age, 28.5 [5.9] years) compared with 308 242 pregnant women not experiencing homelessness (mean [SD] age, 29.4 [5.8] years) within the same hospital, those experiencing homelessness were more likely to experience preterm labor (adjusted probability, 10.5% vs 6.7%; adjusted risk difference [aRD], 3.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-6.5%; adjusted P = .03) and had higher delivery-associated costs (adjusted costs, $6306 vs $5888; aRD, $417; 95% CI, $156-$680; adjusted P = .02) compared with women not experiencing homelessness. Those experiencing homelessness also had a higher probability of placental abnormalities (adjusted probability, 4.0% vs 2.0%; aRD, 1.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%; adjusted P = .053), although this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions and relevance

This study found that women experiencing homelessness, compared with those not experiencing homelessness, who had a delivery and were admitted to the same hospital were more likely to experience preterm labor and incurred higher delivery-associated costs. These findings suggest wide disparities in delivery-associated outcomes between women experiencing homelessness and those not experiencing homelessness in the US. The findings highlight the importance for health care professionals to actively screen pregnant women for homelessness during prenatal care visits and coordinate their care with community health programs and social housing programs to make sure their health care needs are met.

SUBMITTER: Yamamoto A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8063065 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Approximately 356,000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the US. They are at high risk for COVID-19. To assess clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies for COVID-19 management among sheltered homeless adults. We developed a dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 in sheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts. We used cohort characteristics and costs from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were from published literature and national databases. We examined surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re] 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9). Costs were from a health care sector perspective; time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. Simulated cohort of 2,258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston. We assessed daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of screen-positives, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternate care sites [ACSs] for mild/moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing, each compared to no intervention. Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case prevented of COVID-19. We simulated a population of 2,258 sheltered homeless adults with mean age of 42.6 years. Compared to no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild/moderate disease led to 37% fewer infections and 46% lower costs (Re=2.6), 75% fewer infections and 72% lower costs (Re=1.3), and 51% fewer infections and 51% lower costs (Re=0.9). Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks further decreased infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1,000 (Re=2.6), $27,000 (Re=1.3), and $71,000 (Re=0.9). Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more costly than other options. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer COVID-19 infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in COVID-19 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 356 000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the United States. They have high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectiveTo assess the estimated clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness.Design, setting, and participantsThis decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 2258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts. Cohort characteristics and costs were adapted from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were taken from published literature and national databases. Surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re], 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively) were examined. Costs were from a health care sector perspective, and the time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020.ExposuresDaily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals with positive symptom screening results, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternative care sites (ACSs) for mild or moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing were each compared with no intervention.Main outcomes and measuresCumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case of COVID-19 prevented.ResultsThe simulated population of 2258 sheltered homeless adults had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (9.04) years. Compared with no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild or moderate disease was associated with 37% fewer infections (1954 vs 1239) and 46% lower costs ($6.10 million vs $3.27 million) at an Re of 2.6, 75% fewer infections (538 vs 137) and 72% lower costs ($1.46 million vs $0.41 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 51% fewer infections (174 vs 85) and 51% lower costs ($0.54 million vs $0.26 million) at an Re of 0.9. Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with a further decrease in infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1000 at an Re of 2.6, $27 000 at an Re of 1.3, and $71 000 at an Re of 0.9. Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more expensive than other options. Compared with no intervention, temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was associated with 81% fewer infections (376) and 542% higher costs ($39.12 million) at an Re of 2.6, 82% fewer infections (95) and 2568% higher costs ($38.97 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 59% fewer infections (71) and 7114% higher costs ($38.94 million) at an Re of 0.9. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission.Conclusions and relevanceIn this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore the views and experiences of people who are homeless and those supporting them regarding conversations and approaches to palliative care SETTING: Data were collected between October 2015 and October 2016 in homeless hostels and day centres and with staff from primary and secondary healthcare providers and social care services from three London boroughs. PARTICIPANTS:People experiencing homelessness (n=28), formerly homeless people (n=10), health and social care providers (n=48), hostel staff (n=30) and outreach staff (n=10). METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, participants were recruited to interviews and focus groups across three London boroughs. Views and experiences of end-of-life care were explored with people with personal experience of homelessness, health and social care professionals and hostel and outreach staff. Saturation was reached when no new themes emerged from discussions. RESULTS:28 focus groups and 10 individual interviews were conducted. Participants highlighted that conversations exploring future care preferences and palliative care with people experiencing homelessness are rare. Themes identified as challenges to such conversations included attitudes to death; the recovery focused nature of services for people experiencing homelessness; uncertainty regarding prognosis and place of care; and fear of negative impact. CONCLUSIONS:This research highlights the need for a different approach to supporting people who are homeless and are experiencing advanced ill health, one that incorporates uncertainty and promotes well-being, dignity and choice. We propose parallel planning and mapping as a way of working with uncertainty. We acknowledge that these approaches will not always be straightforward, nor will they be suitable for everyone, yet moving the focus of conversations about the future away from death and dying, towards the present and the future may facilitate conversations and enable the wishes of people who are homeless to be known and explored.

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.