Dataset Information

Permanent Supportive Housing With Housing First to Reduce Homelessness and Promote Health Among Homeless Populations With Disability: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Poor physical and mental health and substance use disorder can be causes and consequences of homelessness. Approximately 2.1 million persons per year in the United States experience homelessness. People experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency department use, hospitalization, substance use treatment, social services use, arrest, and incarceration.

Objectives

A standard approach to treating homeless persons with a disability is called Treatment First, requiring clients be "housing ready"-that is, in psychiatric treatment and substance-free-before and while receiving permanent housing. A more recent approach, Housing First, provides permanent housing and health, mental health, and other supportive services without requiring clients to be housing ready. To determine the relative effectiveness of these approaches, this systematic review compared the effects of both approaches on housing stability, health outcomes, and health care utilization among persons with disabilities experiencing homelessness.

Design

A systematic search (database inception to February 2018) was conducted using 8 databases with terms such as "housing first," "treatment first," and "supportive housing." Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Study design and threats to validity were assessed using Community Guide methods. Medians were calculated when appropriate.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they assessed Housing First programs in high-income nations, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, and were written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports.

Main outcome measures

Housing stability, physical and mental health outcomes, and health care utilization.

Results

Twenty-six studies in the United States and Canada met inclusion criteria. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41%. For clients living with HIV infection, Housing First programs reduced homelessness by 37%, viral load by 22%, depression by 13%, emergency departments use by 41%, hospitalization by 36%, and mortality by 37%.

Conclusions

Housing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First programs. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Health care systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services.

SUBMITTER: Peng Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8513528 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether randomization to permanent supportive housing (PSH) versus usual care reduces the use of acute health care and other services among chronically homeless high users of county-funded services.Data sourcesBetween 2015 and 2019, we assessed service use from Santa Clara County, CA, administrative claims data for all county-funded health care, jail and shelter, and mortality.Study designWe conducted a randomized controlled trial among chronically homeless high users of multiple systems. We compared postrandomization outcomes from county-funded systems using multivariate regression analysis.Data collectionWe extracted encounter data from an integrated database capturing health care at county-funded facilities, shelter and jails, county housing placement, and death certificates.Principal findingsWe enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty-six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care. On average, the 169 individuals housed by the PSH intervention have remained housed for 28.8 months (92.9 percent of the study follow-up period). Intervention group members had lower rates of psychiatric ED visits IRR 0.62; 95% CI [0.43, 0.91] and shelter days IRR 0.30; 95% CI [0.17, 0.53], and higher rates of ambulatory mental health services use IRR 1.84; 95% CI [1.43, 2.37] compared to controls. We found no differences in total ED or inpatient use, or jail. Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died.ConclusionsThe intervention placed and retained frequent user, chronically homeless individuals in housing. It decreased psychiatric ED visits and shelter use, and increased outpatient mental health care, but not medical ED visits or hospitalizations. Limitations included more than one-third of usual care participants received another form of subsidized housing, potentially biasing results to the null, and loss of power due to high death rates. PSH can house high-risk individuals and reduce emergent psychiatric services and shelter use. Reductions in hospitalizations may be more difficult to realize.

Project description:PurposePermanent supportive housing (PSH) is an effective intervention to improve residential stability and reduce the utilization of costlier healthcare services for the chronically homeless. However, there has been little focus on health-related quality of life (HRQL) once they enter PSH, and the potential influence of other factors including the PSH model. Study results can shed light on the HRQL of the PSH population and inform strategies to improve PSH program effectiveness in this area.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, survey methods were used to assess the HRQL of PSH residents in the Chicago metropolitan area. The survey also included questions on socio-demographics, health behaviors, housing and neighborhood characteristics, and housing satisfaction. The SF-36 was used to obtain physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores for HRQL. Other variables were selected using the Wilson and Cleary HRQL model. Statistical analyses included summary statistics, bivariate analyses, and fully adjusted linear regression models.ResultsThe study sample included 855 adults currently in PSH. The sample was predominantly African American men with an average age of 53 years. Mean scores for PCS and MCS were 39.4 and 46.1, respectively, (out of 100). In adjusted analyses, older age and being on disability were associated with worse PCS. Having HIV was associated with better PCS. Being non-Hispanic Black, living in fixed-sited housing, and being in PSH for longer durations were associated with better MCS. More depressive symptoms was associated with worse PCS and MCS.ConclusionWhile both aspects of the PSH model (housing configuration and service provision) were initially associated with HRQL in unadjusted analyses, housing configuration was the only PSH model variable that remained significant once accounting for other factors. Depressive symptomology and the social environment also appear to be important correlates of HRQL and are potential areas to target in PSH programs.

Project description:IntroductionSmoke-free homes (SFHs), the voluntary adoption of home smoking restrictions, are associated with reduced secondhand smoke exposure. However, SFHs are uncommon in permanent supportive housing (PSH) for formerly homeless adults, who have fivefold higher smoking rates than the general population. We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area.Aims and methodsWe pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area. Rest of the methods, PSH residents (n = 100) and staff (n = 62) from 15 PSH sites participated in the intervention between October 2017 and February 2018. Research staff provided counseling to PSH residents on how to adopt an SFH and trained PSH staff on how to counsel residents on smoking cessation. The primary outcome was self-reported voluntary adoption of an SFH for ?90 days, and the secondary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified PPA at 6-month follow-up. PSH staff completed the Smoking Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices survey at baseline and 3-month follow-up.ResultsAt 6 months, 31.3% of PSH residents had adopted an SFH (vs. 13.0% at baseline) and 16.9% reported carbon monoxide-verified PPA. A positive attitude toward an SFH policy was associated with increased odds of SFH adoption (adjusted odds ratio = 8.68, 95% confidence interval: 2.42, 31.17). Voluntary SFH adoption was associated with increased PPA (adjusted odds ratio = 26.27, 95% confidence interval: 3.43, 201.30). PSH staff reported improved attitudes toward and self-efficacy in delivering cessation care, and decreased barriers to discussing smoking cessation among PSH residents between baseline and 3-month follow-up.ConclusionsIn this single-arm study, a brief intervention increased SFH adoption and PPA among PSH residents.ImplicationsTo date, few interventions have addressed SFHs and their association with tobacco use among PSH residents. A "ground-up" approach that relies on buy-in from residents and that promotes voluntary SFHs is an innovative way to increase smoke-free living environments in PSH. This approach could pave a pathway for smoke-free policy implementation in these sites. PSH can play a role in reducing the burden of tobacco use by empowering its residents to adopt voluntary SFHs, which could increase smoking cessation among residents.