Informing implementation and dissemination of a specialized primary care medical home for patients with serious mental illness: Clinician and administrator perspectives.

People with serious mental illness (SMI) have lower rates of use of preventative medical services and higher rates of mortality compared to the general population. Research shows that specialized primary care medical homes improve the health care of patients with SMI and are feasible to implement, safe, and more effective than usual care. However, specialized medical homes remain uncommon and model dissemination limited. As part of a controlled trial assessing an SMI-specialized medical home, we examined clinician and administrator perspectives regarding specialized versus mainstream primary care and identified ways to enhance the scale-up of a specialized primary care model for future dissemination. We conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians and administrators at three sites prior to the implementation of an SMI-specialized primary care medical home (n = 26) and at 1-year follow-up (n = 24); one site implemented the intervention, and two sites served as controls. Interviews captured service design features that affected the quality of care provided; contextual factors that supported or impeded medical home implementation; and knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the care of patients with SMI. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Clinicians and administrators described SMI-specialized primary care medical homes as advancing care coordination and outcomes for patients with SMI. Stakeholders identified elements of a specialized medical home that they viewed as superior to usual care, including having a holistic picture of patients' needs and greater care coordination. However, to enable scale-up, efforts are needed to increase staffing on care teams, develop robust clinician onboarding or training, and ensure close coordination with mental health care providers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Placement into Scattered-Site or Place-Based Permanent Supportive Housing in Los Angeles County, CA, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

There are two dominant approaches to implementing permanent supportive housing (PSH), namely place-based (PB) and scattered-site (SS). Formal guidance does not distinguish between these two models and only specifies that PSH should be reserved for those who are most vulnerable with complex health needs. To consider both system- and self-selection factors that may affect housing assignment, this study applied the Gelberg-Anderson behavioral model for vulnerable populations to compare predisposing, enabling, and need factors among people experiencing homelessness (PE) by whether they were assigned to PB-PSH (n = 272) or SS-PSH (n = 185) in Los Angeles County during the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory, observational study also included those who were approved but did not receive PSH (n = 94). Results show that there are notable differences between (a) those who received PSH versus those who did not, and (b) those in PB-PSH versus SS-PSH. Specifically, PEH who received PSH were more likely to be white, US-born, have any physical health condition, and have lower health activation scores. PEH who received PB- versus SS-PSH were more likely to be older, Black, have any alcohol use disorder, and have higher health activation scores. These findings suggest that homeless service systems may consider PB-PSH more appropriate for PEH with higher needs but also raises important questions about how race may be a factor in the type of PSH that PEH receive and whether PSH is received at all.

Clinician and Patient Perspectives on the Use of Passive Mobile Monitoring and Self-Tracking for Patients With Serious Mental Illness: User-Centered Approach.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention in mental health crises can prevent negative outcomes. A promising new direction is remote mental health monitoring using smartphone technology to passively collect data from individuals to rapidly detect the worsening of serious mental illness (SMI). This technology may benefit patients with SMI, but little is known about health IT acceptability among this population or their mental health clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We used the Health Information Technology Acceptability Model to analyze the acceptability and usability of passive mobile monitoring and self-tracking among patients with serious mental illness and their mental health clinicians. METHODS: Data collection took place between December 2020 and June 2021 in 1 Veterans Administration health care system. Interviews with mental health clinicians (n=16) assessed the acceptability of mobile sensing, its usefulness as a tool to improve clinical assessment and care, and recommendations for program refinements. Focus groups with patients with SMI (n=3 groups) and individual usability tests (n=8) elucidated patient attitudes about engaging in health IT and perceptions of its usefulness as a tool for self-tracking and improving mental health assessments. RESULTS: Clinicians discussed the utility of web-based data dashboards to monitor patients with SMI health behaviors and receiving alerts about their worsening health. Potential benefits included improving clinical care, capturing behaviors patients do not self-report, watching trends, and receiving alerts. Clinicians' concerns included increased workloads tied to dashboard data review, lack of experience using health IT in clinical care, and how SMI patients' associated paranoia and financial instability would impact patient uptake. Despite concerns, all mental health clinicians stated that they would recommend it. Almost all patients with SMI were receptive to using smartphone dashboards for self-monitoring and having behavioral change alerts sent to their mental health clinicians. They found the mobile app easy to navigate and dashboards easy to find and understand. Patient concerns centered on privacy and "government tracking," and their phone's battery life and data plans. Despite concerns, most reported that they would use it. CONCLUSIONS: Many people with SMI would like to have mobile informatics tools that can support their illness and recovery. Similar to other populations (eg, older adults, people experiencing homelessness) this population presents challenges to adoption and implementation. Health care organizations will need to provide resources to address these and support successful illness management. Clinicians are supportive of technological approaches, with adapting informatics data into their workflow as the primary challenge. Despite clear challenges, technological developments are increasingly designed to be acceptable to patients. The research development-clinical deployment gap must be addressed by health care systems, similar to computerized cognitive training. It will ensure clinicians operate at the top of their skill set and are not overwhelmed by administrative tasks, data summarization, or reviewing data that do not indicate a need for intervention. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/39010.

Bringing Lived Experience to Research on Health and Homelessness: Perspectives of Researchers and Lived Experience Partners.

Improving health and healthcare for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) has become a national research priority. It is critical for research related to homelessness to be guided by input from PEH themselves. We are a group of researchers and individuals who have personally experienced homelessness collaborating on a study focused on homelessness and housing. In this Fresh Focus, we describe our partnership, lessons learned from our work together, what we have gained from our collaboration, and considerations for future homelessness research-lived experience partnerships.

Investigating the Comparative Effectiveness of Place-Based and Scatter-Site Permanent Supportive Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocols for a Mixed Methods, Prospective Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is an evidence-based practice to address homelessness that is implemented using 2 distinct approaches. The first approach is place-based PSH (PB-PSH), or single-site housing placement, in which an entire building with on-site services is designated for people experiencing homelessness. The second approach is scatter-site PSH (SS-PSH), which uses apartments rented from a private landlord while providing mobile case management services. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocols for a mixed methods comparative effectiveness study of 2 distinct approaches to implementing PSH and the patient-centered quality of life, health care use, and health behaviors that reduce COVID-19 risk. METHODS: People experiencing homelessness who are placed in either PB-PSH or SS-PSH completed 6 monthly surveys after move-in using smartphones provided by the study team. A subsample of participants completed 3 qualitative interviews at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months that included photo elicitation interviewing. Two stakeholder advisory groups, including one featuring people with lived experience of homelessness, helped guide study decisions and interpretations of findings. RESULTS: Study recruitment was supposed to occur over 6 months starting in January 2021 but was extended due to delays in recruitment. These delays included COVID-19 delays (eg, recruitment sites shut down due to outbreaks and study team members testing positive) and delays that may have been indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including high staff turnover or recruitment sites having competing priorities. In end-July 2022, in total, 641 people experiencing homelessness had been referred from 26 partnering recruitment sites, and 563 people experiencing homelessness had enrolled in the study and completed a baseline demographic survey. Of the 563 participants in the study, 452 had recently moved into the housing when they enrolled, with 272 placed in PB-PSH and 180 placed in SS-PSH. Another 111 participants were approved but are still waiting for housing placement. To date, 49 participants have been lost to follow-up, and 12% of phones (70 of the initial 563 distributed) were reported lost by participants. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment during the pandemic, while successful, was challenging given that in-person contact was not permitted at times either by program sites or the research institutions during COVID-19 surges and high community transmission, which particularly affected homelessness programs in Los Angeles County. To overcome recruitment challenges, flexible strategies were used, which included extending the recruitment period and the distribution of cell phones with paid data plans. Given current recruitment numbers and retention rates that are over 90%, the study will be able to address a gap in the literature by considering the comparative effectiveness of PB-PSH versus SS-PSH on patient-centered quality of life, health care use, and health behaviors that reduce COVID-19 risk, which can influence future public health approaches to homelessness and infectious diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04769349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04769349. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46782.

Linking health education, civic engagement, and research at a large Federally Qualified Health Center to address health disparities.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for patient-centered research in a community health center. STUDY SETTING: Primary organizational case-study data were collected at a large Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Southern California from 2019 to 2021. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty stakeholders, including patients, community leaders, students, medical providers, and academic partners, participated in community-engagement capacity-building exercises and planning. These activities were guided by Community Based Participatory Principles and were part of an initiative to address health disparities by supporting patient and community-engaged research. DATA COLLECTION: The study included an iterative development process. Stakeholders participated in a total of 44 workgroup meetings and 7 full-group quarterly convenings. The minutes of the meetings from both workgroups and quarterly convenings were used to document the evolution of the initiative. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Stakeholders concluded that health equity research needs to be part of a larger engagement ecosystem and that, in some ways, engagement on research projects may be a later-stage form of engagement following patient/community and staff/researcher coeducation and cocapacity building efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Community health center stakeholders viewed successful engagement of community members in patient-centered health equity research as involving a web of longitudinal, evolving internal and external relationships rather than discrete, time-limited, and single-project-based dyadic connections.

Housing Insecurity Among Latinxs.

Latinxs are vulnerable to experiencing housing insecurity and less likely to receive public benefits, such as health insurance, which can impact a household's economic resources. We inform homelessness prevention by examining the association of social risks and healthcare access with housing insecurity for Latinxs. Our sample consisted of 120,362 participants under the age of 65, of which 17.3% were Latinx. Weighted chi-squared tests and logistic regression were used to examine predictors of housing insecurity. Housing insecurity was measured as worry about paying for housing. Latinxs were almost twice as likely as non-Latinxs to worry about paying for housing. Excellent/fair health status, health service use, and having health insurance decreased the likelihood of housing insecurity for Latinxs. Access to health insurance, regardless of citizenship status, and use of preventative healthcare to maintain good health can be protective against housing insecurity.

Exploring Community Integration Among Formerly Homeless Veterans in Project-Based Versus Tenant-Based Supportive Housing.

Community integration-an individual's embeddedness in his/her community-impacts mental and physical health. This study aimed to understand factors affecting community integration among Veterans in the Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with HUD-VASH staff (n = 14) and persons residing in project-based (n = 9) and tenant-based (n = 9) housing at VA Greater Los Angeles. Participants identified neighborhood safety concerns as a limitation to community integration. Participants were reluctant to connect with HUD-VASH peers living nearby because they wanted to focus on their own recovery (e.g., from substance use); and many were dissatisfied with the location of their apartments. Staff valued community integration but saw it as secondary to housing retention. Increased access to safe neighborhoods (e.g., through relationship building with landlords) and the addition of staff dedicated to improving community integration (e.g., peer-support specialists) would enhance community integration in the HUD-VASH program.

Comparing Tenant and Neighborhood Characteristics of the VA's Project- vs. Tenant-Based Supportive Housing Program in Los Angeles County.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-Veteran Administration Supportive Housing (VASH) program uses project- and tenant-based vouchers to provide permanent supportive housing for homeless Veterans. We compared Veteran characteristics, health service utilization, and neighborhood characteristics between HUD-VASH participants with project-based (n=114) vs. tenant-based (n=978) vouchers. We found that project-based voucher holders were older and more ill than tenant-based voucher holders. Project-based vouchers were also associated with higher-quality neighborhoods and higher rates of health service utilization than tenant-based vouchers. With the limited availability of project-based vouchers, juxtaposed with the increased service use and better neighborhood quality with this voucher type, our findings suggest a need to think strategically about how best to allocate housing vouchers to meet homeless Veteran's needs.

Determinants of Community Integration Among Formerly Homeless Veterans Who Received Supportive Housing.

Community integration is recognized as a meaningful goal that is highly relevant to the long-term success of supportive housing programs. Research to date highlights concerns that some individuals in permanent supportive housing remain socially isolated and have limited success in other domains of community integration. However, we know little about what factors impact formerly homeless veterans' ability to achieve community integration. To identify factors associated with community integration among homeless veterans housed through the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) Supportive Housing program (HUD-VASH), we performed secondary database analyses of Veterans (n = 560) housed via HUD-VASH in the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System from 10/1/14-9/30/15. We conducted ordinal and logit regressions to examine associations between baseline HUD-VASH participant characteristics, supportive housing voucher type, health service utilization in the year post-housing, and three types of community integration outcomes (i.e., change in community adjustment, status of housing stability, and change in employment). Data were obtained from HOMES (VA's homeless registry) and Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) (VA's a national administrative dataset of VA inpatient and outpatient care). Mental health service utilization was negatively associated with community adjustment, housing stability, and employment. Employment at baseline was positively associated with housing stability and employment. Also, substance use disorder visits was positively associated with employment, and combined medical and substance use disorder diagnoses was positively associated with change in community adjustment. We considered 29 variables and found relatively few were associated with community integration. Consistent with previous research, our study highlights the importance of mental health needs, and suggests that utilization of mental health services is an important indicator of improvements in community adjustment, housing stability, and employment.

Using Health Impact Assessment as an Interdisciplinary Teaching Tool.

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) courses are teaching public health and urban planning students how to assess the likely health effects of proposed policies, plans, and projects. We suggest that public health and urban planning have complimentary frameworks for training practitioners to address the living conditions that affect health. Planning perspectives emphasize practical skills for impacting community change, while public health stresses professional purpose and ethics. Frameworks from both disciplines can enhance the HIA learning experience by helping students tackle questions related to community impact, engagement, social justice, and ethics. We also propose that HIA community engagement processes can be enriched through an empathetic practice that focuses on greater personal introspection.