Integrated approach to cardiovascular disease in people experiencing homelessness: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), beyond impact of socioeconomic status. CVD is preventable and treatable, though barriers to interventions exist for people experiencing homelessness. Those with lived experience of homelessness and health professionals with relevant expertise can help to understand and address these barriers. OBJECTIVES: To understand, and make recommendations to improve, CVD care in homeless populations through lived and professional expertise. METHOD: Four focus groups were conducted in March-July 2019. Three groups included people currently or previously experiencing homelessness, each attended by a cardiologist (AB), a health services researcher (PB) and an 'expert by experience' (SB) who coordinated participants. One group included multidisciplinary health and social care professionals in and around London to explore solutions. PARTICIPANTS: The three groups included 16 men and 9 women, aged 20-60 years, of whom 24 were homeless and currently living in hostels, and 1 rough sleeper. At least 14 discussed sleeping rough at some point. RESULTS: Participants were aware of CVD risks and relevance of healthy habits but identified barriers to prevention and health access, starting with disorientation affecting planning and self-care, lack of facilities for food, hygiene and exercise, and experiences of discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: CVD care for those experiencing homelessness should account for fundamental problems of the environment, be codesigned with service users and cover key principles: flexibility, public and staff education, integration of support and advocacy for health service rights.

Why were COVID-19 infections lower than expected amongst people who are homeless in London, UK in 2020? Exploring community perspectives and the multiple pathways of health inequalities in pandemics.

High rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths amongst people who are homeless in London, UK were feared. Rates however stayed much lower than expected throughout 2020; an experience that compares to other settings globally. This study sought a community level perspective to explore this rate of infections, and through this explore relationships between COVID-19 and existing health inequalities. Analyses are reported from ongoing qualitative studies on COVID-19 and homeless health service evaluation in London, UK. Repeated in-depth telephone interviews were implemented with people experiencing homelessness in London (n=17; 32 interviews in total) as well as street outreach workers, nurses and hostel staff (n=10) from September 2020 to early 2021. Thematic analysis generated three themes to explore peoples' experiences of, and perspectives on, low infections: people experiencing homelessness following, creating and breaking social distancing and hygiene measures; social distancing in the form of social exclusion as a long-running feature of life; and a narrative of 'street immunity' resulting from harsh living conditions. Further study is needed to understand how these factors combine to prevent COVID-19 and how they relate to different experiences of homelessness. This community perspective can ensure that emerging narratives of COVID-19 prevention success don't ignore longer running causes of homelessness and reinforce stigmatising notions of people who are homeless as lacking agency. Our findings aid theorisation of how health inequalities shape pandemic progression: severe exclusion may substantially delay epidemics in some communities, although with considerable other non-COVID-19 impacts.

"PPI? That sounds like Payment Protection Insurance": Reflections and learning from a substance use and homelessness study Experts by Experience group.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement in research is important for citizenship, accountability and transparency, and has the practical benefit of helping to ensure its quality and applicability. Involving members of the public in research is becoming increasingly commonplace, in the UK and internationally. It is essential that public involvement is inclusive of individuals and their diverse life experiences, including challenging experiences that may be associated with stigma and social exclusion. The involvement of people with lived/living experience of substance use and homelessness in research is increasing in response to increased recognition of the importance of inclusion and the benefits conferred to research. MAIN BODY: In this commentary, we share our own experiences of being part of a Patient and Public Involvement group that was convened during a feasibility study of a peer-delivered harm reduction intervention. We are a diverse group but share experience of the field of substance use/homelessness, as people with lived/living experience, and as researchers and practitioners. We share our reflections and learning, as well as offer recommendations for researchers working in our field. Our group worked together to make a positive and deliberate contribution to the study. This did not happen by chance but required the development of mutual trust and respect, with each member having a commitment to support the group for its two-year duration. SHORT CONCLUSION: It is important for researchers to appreciate that meaningful Patient and Public Involvement is very valuable but requires a commitment from all involved. Regarding our field of substance use and homelessness specifically, it is essential that people with these experiences have opportunities to contribute to research and can do so in a meaningful way. People with lived/living experience are able to bring to life the rich tapestry of others' experiences. However, the involvement must be neither tokenistic nor indifferent to the wider challenges common to these experiences.

This article describes the activities and lessons learned from the involvement of an Experts by Experience group in a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study. The study was about peer support for people experiencing homelessness and substance use challenges. The Experts by Experience group was made up of research team members, and a range of individuals from across the UK who had experienced homelessness and/or drug use and/or alcohol use, and who were recruited from a range of services who currently worked with people experiencing homelessness and/or substance use. The purpose of the group was to 'sense check' the study throughout. The group was a requirement from NIHR who funded the project. These groups are usually known as PPI groups (Patient and Public Involvement), but members of the group felt that 'Experts by Experience' was a more accurate term to describe the membership. The lived/living experience members' knowledge of the topic, and experience of using the types of services and interventions involved in the study, helped to guide the study team. Study team members facilitated Experts by Experience group meetings, but everyone was equal. The group gelled and worked well together to oversee the study. This article describes the benefits of having Experts by Experience members as part of the project from the inception through to the end. Ensuring the group had autonomy enhanced the study and was a powerful and empowering experience for the lived/living experience members.

Influenza vaccination, inverse care and homelessness: cross-sectional survey of eligibility and uptake during the 2011/12 season in London.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination eligibility and uptake among homeless adults has not been previously assessed in the UK. This cross-sectional survey aimed to measure the proportion of homeless people visited by an NHS outreach service (Find and Treat) who were eligible for and had received vaccination during 2011/12. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in 27 separate homeless hostels, day centres and drug services in London between July and August in 2012. Eligibility for the survey was by virtue of being in attendance at one of 27 venues visited by Find and Treat. No specific exclusion criteria were used. RESULTS: 455 clients took part in the survey out of 592 approached (76.9%). A total of 190 homeless people (41.8%; 95% CI: 34.5,50.5) were eligible for influenza vaccination. In those aged 16-64, eligibility due to clinical risk factors was 38.9% (95% CI: 31.5,48.2). Uptake of vaccination in homeless 16-64 year olds with a clinical risk factor during the 2011/12 influenza season was 23.7% (95% CI: 19.8,28.3) compared to national levels of 53.2% (excluding pregnant women). In those aged over 65, uptake was 42.9% (95% CI: 16.7,100.0) compared with 74.0% nationally. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the homeless population have high levels of chronic health problems predisposing them to severe complications of influenza, but vaccine uptake levels that are less than half those seen among eligible GP patient groups in England. It provides a clear example of the health inequalities and inverse care law that impact this population. The results of this study provide strong justification for intensifying efforts to ensure homeless people have access to influenza vaccination.