Health-related quality of life and related factors among chronically homeless adults living in different permanent supportive housing models: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Permanent 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: While 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.

Placement of chronically homeless into different types of permanent supportive housing before and after a coordinated entry system: The influence of severe mental illness, substance use disorder, and dual diagnosis on housing configuration and intensity of services.

AIMS: Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is designed to house people who experience chronic homelessness with one or more of the following: serious mental illness (SMI), substance use disorders (SUD) or human immunodeficiency virus. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has required major metropolitan areas to develop a coordinated entry system (CES) to prioritize access to PSH to those who need it the most. The aim of this paper is to determine whether PSH residents with SMI, SUD, or dual diagnosis were more likely to be housed after implementation of CES and were more likely to be housed in housing models with more intensive services provided. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with 855 residents of different PSH models. RESULTS: Those with SMI, SUD, or dual diagnosis were not more likely to be housed using the CES but were more likely to be housed in higher intensity service programs. CONCLUSIONS: Those with SMI are more likely to be housed in PSH with high-intensity services.

Cost-utility analysis of the housing and health intervention for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV.

We present a cost-utility analysis based on data from the Housing and Health (H&H) Study of rental assistance for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV in Baltimore, Chicago and Los Angeles. As-treated analyses found favorable associations of housing with HIV viral load, emergency room use, and perceived stress (an outcome that can be quantitatively linked to quality of life). We combined these outcome data with information on intervention costs to estimate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) saved. We estimate that the cost-per-QALY-saved by the HIV-related housing services is $62,493. These services compare favorably (in terms of cost-effectiveness) to other well-accepted medical and public health services.

The comparative effectiveness of different models of permanent supportive housing on problematic substance use, depression, and anxiety symptoms over time.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of different models of permanent supportive housing (PSH), housing configuration, and service provision model on substance use, depression, and anxiety symptoms among residents over time. METHODS: Linear mixed model regression was used with 888 residents of PSH to investigate the relationship between supportive housing type, service model, and housing configuration and change in mental health and substance use at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were few significant differences in problematic substance use, depression, or anxiety symptoms among those in different PSH types, different housing configuration models, or different service provision models. Similarly, there were no significant differences in PSH type, housing configuration, or service delivery model among those with severe mental illness (SMI), substance use disorder (SUD), or those with dual diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence that different models of PSH result in differences in mental health and substance use outcomes. Future research should consider the number of services clients receive and critical periods in PSH residency in improving mental health and substance use outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals: Challenges and opportunities for providers in Chicago, USA.

Chronically homeless individuals often have extensive health, mental health and psychosocial needs that pose barriers to obtaining and maintain supportive housing. This study aims to qualitatively explore supportive housing providers' experiences and challenges with housing chronically homeless individuals and examine opportunities to improve supportive housing systems of care. In 2014, we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 65 programme administrators and case managers of supportive housing programmes in Chicago, IL. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic content analysis. Analysis revealed four themes that capture the primary challenges faced by housing providers: housing priorities, funding cuts, co-ordinated entry and permanency of housing. Housing for the chronically homeless has been prioritised, yet service providers are being expected to provide the necessary services to meet the needs of this population without commensurate funding increases or agency capacity. Additionally, case managers and administrators discussed the tension over housing tenure and the permanency of supportive housing. Findings provide qualitative insight into the challenges providers face implementing supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals.

Identifying variability in permanent supportive housing: A comparative effectiveness approach to measuring health outcomes.

Supportive housing has become the dominant model in the United States to provide housing to the chronically homeless and to improve their housing stability and health. Most supportive housing programs follow a "housing first" paradigm modeled after the Pathways to Housing program in New York City. However, components of housing first supportive housing models were poorly defined, and supportive models have varied considerably in their dissemination and implementation to other parts of the country. Recently, research has been conducted to determine the fidelity by which specific housing programs adhere to the Pathways Housing First model. However, evidence regarding which combination of components leads to better health outcomes for particular subpopulations is lacking. This article presents results from qualitative interviews with supportive housing providers in the Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan area. Supportive housing varied according to housing configuration (scattered-site vs. project-based) and service provision model (low-intensity case management, intensive case management and behavioral health), resulting in 6 basic types. Supportive housing programs also differed in services they provided in addition to case management and the extent to which they followed harm-reduction versus abstinence policies. Results showed advantages and disadvantages of each of the 6 basic types. Comparative effectiveness research may help identify which program components lead to better health outcomes among different subpopulations of homeless. Future longitudinal research will use the identified typology and other factors to compare the housing stability and health outcomes of supportive housing residents in programs that differ along these dimensions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cost and threshold analysis of housing as an HIV prevention intervention.

The Housing and Health study examines the effects of permanent supportive housing for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. While promising as an HIV prevention intervention, providing housing may be more expensive to deliver than some other HIV prevention services. Economic evaluation is needed to determine if investment in permanent supportive housing would be cost-saving or cost-effective. Here we ask -- what is the per client cost of delivering the intervention, and how many HIV transmissions have to be averted in order to exceed the threshold needed to claim cost-savings or cost-effectiveness to society? Standard methods of cost and threshold analysis were employed. Payor perspective costs range from $9,256 to $11,651 per client per year; societal perspective costs range from $10,048 to $14,032 per client per year. Considering that averting a new case of HIV saves an estimated $221,365 in treatment costs, the average cost-saving threshold across the three study cities is 0.0555. Expressed another way, if just one out of every 19 Housing & Health intervention clients avoided HIV transmission to an HIV seronegative partner the intervention would be cost-saving. The intervention would be cost-effective if it prevented just one HIV transmission for every 64 clients served.