Community Health Workers to Increase Cancer Screening: 3 Community Guide Systematic Reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Many in the U.S. are not up to date with cancer screening. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of interventions engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Authors identified relevant publications from previous Community Guide systematic reviews of interventions to increase cancer screening (1966 through 2013) and from an update search (January 2014-November 2021). Studies written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were included if they assessed interventions implemented in high-income countries; reported screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer; and engaged community health workers to implement part or all of the interventions. Community health workers needed to come from or have close knowledge of the intervention community. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies. Interventions engaging community health workers increased screening use for breast (median increase=11.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=5.5‒23.5), cervical (median increase=12.8 percentage points, interquartile interval=6.4‒21.0), and colorectal cancers (median increase=10.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=4.5‒17.5). Interventions were effective whether community health workers worked alone or as part of a team. Interventions increased cancer screening independent of race or ethnicity, income, or insurance status. DISCUSSION: Interventions engaging community health workers are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to increase cancer screening. These interventions are typically implemented in communities where people are underserved to improve health and can enhance health equity. Further training and financial support for community health workers should be considered to increase cancer screening uptake.

Tenant-Based Housing Voucher Programs: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Unaffordable or insecure housing is associated with poor health in children and adults. Tenant-based housing voucher programs (voucher programs) limit rent to 30% or less of household income to help households with low income obtain safe and affordable housing. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of voucher programs in improving housing, health, and other health-related outcomes for households with low income. DESIGN: Community Guide systematic review methods were used to assess intervention effectiveness and threats to validity. An updated systematic search based on a previous Community Guide review was conducted for literature published from 1999 to July 2019 using electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they assessed voucher programs in the United States, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, were written in English, and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Housing quality and stability, neighborhood opportunity (safety and poverty), education, income, employment, physical and mental health, health care use, and risky health behavior. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Compared with low-income households not offered vouchers, voucher-using households reported increased housing quality (7.9 percentage points [pct pts]), decreased housing insecurity or homelessness (-22.4 pct pts), and decreased neighborhood poverty (-5.2 pct pts).Adults in voucher-using households had improved health care access and physical and mental health. Female youth experienced better physical and mental health but not male youth. Children who entered the voucher programs under 13 years of age had improved educational attainment, employment, and income in their adulthood; children's gains in these outcomes were inversely related to their age at program entry. CONCLUSION: Voucher programs improved health and several health-related outcomes for voucher-using households, particularly young children. Research is still needed to better understand household's experiences and contextual factors that influence achievement of desired outcomes.

Priority Topics for the Community Preventive Services Task Force, 2020-2025: A Data-Driven, Partner-Informed Approach.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Preventive Services Task Force periodically engages in a process to identify priority topics to guide their work. This article described the process and results for selecting priority topics to guide the work of the Community Preventive Services Task Force for the period 2020-2025. METHODS: The Community Preventive Services Task Force started with Healthy People 2020 topics. They solicited input on topics from partner organizations and the public. The Community Preventive Services Task Force considered information on 8 criteria for each topic. They conducted preliminary voting and applied a priori decision rules regarding the voting results. The Community Preventive Services Task Force then engaged in facilitated deliberations and took a final vote. This process occurred October 2019-June 2020. RESULTS: From Healthy People 2020, a total of 37 topics were selected as the starting point. The initial voting and decision rules resulted in 3 topics being determined as priorities. Community Preventive Services Task Force members considered data and information on the criteria to inform their deliberations on an additional 7 topics. A total of 9 topics were selected as the set of priorities for 2020-2025. CONCLUSIONS: Having a process that is routine and data-driven ensures that the selection of priorities is sound. By reviewing priority topics every 5 years, the Community Preventive Services Task Force will continue to provide relevant recommendations on community preventive services to improve the nation's health.

Permanent Supportive Housing With Housing First: Findings From a Community Guide Systematic Economic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The annual economic burden of chronic homelessness in the U.S. is estimated to be as high as $3.4 billion. The Permanent Supportive Housing with Housing First (Housing First) program, implemented to address the problem, has been shown to be effective. This paper examines the economic cost and benefit of Housing First Programs. METHODS: The search of peer-reviewed and gray literature from inception of databases through November 2019 yielded 20 evaluation studies of Housing First Programs, 17 from the U.S. and 3 from Canada. All analyses were conducted from March 2019 through July 2020. Monetary values are reported in 2019 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Evidence from studies conducted in the U.S. was separated from those conducted in Canada. The median intervention cost per person per year for U.S. studies was $16,479, and for all studies, including those from Canada, it was $16,336. The median total benefit for the U.S. studies was $18,247 per person per year, and it was $17,751 for all studies, including those from Canada. The benefit-to-cost ratio for U.S. studies was 1.80:1, and for all studies, including those from Canada, it was 1.06:1. DISCUSSION: The evidence from this review shows that economic benefits exceed the cost of Housing First Programs in the U.S. There were too few studies to determine cost-benefit in the Canadian context.

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

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.