Dataset Information

Victimisation of individuals with serious mental illness living in sheltered housing: differential impact of risk factors related to clinical and demographic characteristics.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sheltered housing is associated with quality-of-life improvements for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). However, there are equivocal findings around safety outcomes related to this type of living condition.

Aims

We aimed to investigate raw differences in prevalence and incidence of crime victimisation in sheltered housing compared with living alone or with family; and to identify groups at high risk for victimisation, using demographic and clinical factors. We do so by reporting estimated victimisation incidents for each risk group.

Method

A large, community-based, cross-sectional survey of 956 people with SMI completed the Dutch Crime and Victimisation Survey. Data was collected on victimisation prevalence and number of incidents in the past year.

Results

Victimisation prevalence was highest among residents in sheltered housing (50.8%) compared with persons living alone (43%) or with family (37.8%). We found that sheltered housing was associated with increased raw victimisation incidence (incidence rate ratio: 2.80, 95% CI 2.36-3.34 compared with living with family; 1.87, 95% CI 1.59-2.20 compared with living alone). Incidence was especially high for some high-risk groups, including men, people with comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder and those with high levels of education. However, women reported less victimisation in sheltered housing than living alone or with family, if they also reported drug or alcohol use.

Conclusions

The high prevalence and incidence of victimisation among residents in sheltered housing highlights the need for more awareness and surveillance of victimisation in this population group, to better facilitate a recovery-enabling environment for residents with SMI.

SUBMITTER: Zarchev M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8142546 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLifestyle interventions can improve health-related outcomes for people with severe mental illness (SMI), but few studies evaluate this potential in everyday settings. After a successful approach in routine inpatient mental healthcare (MULTI), we sought to replicate this multidisciplinary lifestyle-enhancing support in people with SMI living in sheltered housing (MULTI_sh).AimsTo evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of MULTI_sh (trial registration: NCT03157557).MethodIn an effectiveness-implementation hybrid cluster-randomised controlled trial, six municipalities with sheltered housing facilities in The Netherlands were randomly assigned to MULTI_sh (n = 3) or treatment as usual (TAU, n = 3). After 12 months, we evaluated effects on metabolic health, sedentary behaviour/physical activity (ActiGraph GT3X+), quality of life (EuroQol 5D, WHOQoL-Bref) and psychopathology (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Expanded Version) using multiple regression, adjusting for baseline values and municipalities (intention to treat and per protocol). In addition, implementation fidelity and barriers/facilitators were evaluated (Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovation).ResultsOf 177 eligible patients, 74 (42%) could be included in the analyses. Health outcomes did not substantially improve with MULTI_sh (n = 45) compared with TAU (n = 29). MULTI_sh was not implemented as intended. Most patients and all healthcare professionals believed that patients' lifestyle should be part of treatment, but implementation was primarily (in)directly hindered by organisational factors (e.g. staff shortages, complexity of participation, lack of time and difficulty getting patients involved).ConclusionsMULTI_sh was not implemented as intended and no clinical health improvements were found. Organisations are decisive in the success or failure of the implementation of lifestyle interventions for people with SMI. More intensive implementation strategies on this level are warranted in sheltered housing.

Project description:BackgroundExperiences of homelessness and serious mental illness (SMI) negatively impact health and receipt of healthcare. Interventions that promote the use of primary care services for people with both SMI and homelessness may improve health outcomes, but this literature has not been evaluated systematically. This evidence map examines the breadth of literature to describe what intervention strategies have been studied for this population, elements of primary care integration with other services used, and the level of intervention complexity to highlight gaps for future intervention research and program development.MethodsWe followed an a priori protocol developed in collaboration with clinical stakeholders. We systematically searched the published literature to identify interventions for adults with homelessness who also had SMI. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. Data abstraction methods followed standard practice. Data were categorized into intervention strategies and primary care integration strategies. Then we applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize intervention complexity.ResultsTwenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria evaluating 15 unique interventions to promote engagement in primary care for adults with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Study designs varied widely from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to single-site program evaluations. Intervention strategies varied across studies but primarily targeted patients directly (e.g., health education, evidence-based interactions such as motivational interviewing) with fewer strategies employed at the clinic (e.g., employee training, multidisciplinary teams) or system levels (e.g., data sharing). We identified elements of primary care integration, including referral strategies, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning. Interventions displayed notable complexity around the number of intervention components, interaction between intervention components, and extent to which interventions were tailored to specific patient populations.DiscussionWe identified and categorized elements used in various combinations to address the primary care needs of individuals with experiences of homeless and SMI.

Project description:IntroductionPeople with serious mental illness (SMI) have poor health outcomes, in part because of inequitable access to quality health services. Primary care is well suited to coordinate and manage care for this population; however, providers may feel ill-equipped to do so and patients may not have the support and resources required to coordinate their care. We lack a strong understanding of prevention and management of chronic disease in primary care among people with SMI as well as the context-specific barriers that exist at the patient, provider and system levels. This mixed methods study will answer three research questions: (1) How do primary care services received by people living with SMI differ from those received by the general population? (2) What are the experiences of people with SMI in accessing and receiving chronic disease prevention and management in primary care? (3) What are the experiences of primary care providers in caring for individuals with SMI?Methods and analysisWe will conduct a concurrent mixed methods study in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, including quantitative analyses of linked administrative data and in-depth qualitative interviews with people living with SMI and primary care providers. By comparing across two provinces, each with varying degrees of mental health service investment and different primary care models, results will shed light on individual and system-level factors that facilitate or impede quality preventive and chronic disease care for people with SMI in the primary care setting.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board and partner institutions. An integrated knowledge translation approach brings together researchers, providers, policymakers, decision-makers, patient and caregiver partners and knowledge users. Working with this team, we will develop policy-relevant recommendations for improvements to primary care systems that will better support providers and reduce health inequities.