Effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions for homeless individuals in high-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Permanent supportive housing and income assistance are valuable interventions for homeless individuals. Homelessness can reduce physical and social wellbeing, presenting public health risks for infectious diseases, disability, and death. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income interventions on the health and social wellbeing of individuals who are homeless in high-income countries. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, NIHR-HTA, NHS EED, DARE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to Feb 10, 2020, for studies on permanent supportive housing and income interventions for homeless populations. We included only randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cost-effectiveness studies from high-income countries that reported at least one outcome of interest (housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, earned income, or employment). We screened studies using a standardised data collection form and pooled data from published studies. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. FINDINGS: Our search identified 15 908 citations, of which 72 articles were included for analysis (15 studies on permanent supportive housing across 41 publications, ten studies on income interventions across 15 publications, and 21 publications on cost or cost-effectiveness). Permanent supportive housing interventions increased long-term (6 year) housing stability for participants with moderate support needs (one study; rate ratio [RR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01-1·26]) and high support needs (RR 1·42 [1·19-1·69]) when compared with usual care. Permanent supportive housing had no measurable effect on the severity of psychiatric symptoms (ten studies), substance use (nine studies), income (two studies), or employment outcomes (one study) when compared with usual social services. Income interventions, particularly housing subsidies with case management, showed long-term improvements in the number of days stably housed (one study; mean difference at 3 years between intervention and usual services 8·58 days; p<0·004), whereas the effects on mental health and employment outcomes were unclear. INTERPRETATION: Permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions were effective in reducing homelessness and achieving housing stability. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of housing and income interventions on physical and mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life outcomes. FUNDING: Inner City Health Associates.

The effectiveness of case management interventions for the homeless, vulnerably housed and persons with lived experience: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed are at an increased risk for mental illness, other morbidities and premature death. Standard case management interventions as well as more intensive models with practitioner support, such as assertive community treatment, critical time interventions, and intensive case management, may improve healthcare navigation and outcomes. However, the definitions of these models as well as the fidelity and adaptations in real world interventions are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of case management interventions on health and social outcomes for homeless populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline, Embase and 7 other electronic databases for trials on case management or care coordination, from the inception of these databases to July 2019. We sought outcomes on housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalization, income and employment, and cost-effectiveness. We calculated pooled random effects estimates and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 13,811 citations; and 56 primary studies met our full inclusion criteria. Standard case management had both limited and short-term effects on substance use and housing outcomes and showed potential to increase hostility and depression. Intensive case management substantially reduced the number of days spent homeless (SMD -0.22 95% CI -0.40 to -0.03), as well as substance and alcohol use. Critical time interventions and assertive community treatment were found to have a protective effect in terms of rehospitalizations and a promising effect on housing stability. Assertive community treatment was found to be cost-effective compared to standard case management. CONCLUSIONS: Case management approaches were found to improve some if not all of the health and social outcomes that were examined in this study. The important factors were likely delivery intensity, the number and type of caseloads, hospital versus community programs and varying levels of participant needs. More research is needed to fully understand how to continue to obtain the increased benefits inherent in intensive case management, even in community settings where feasibility considerations lead to larger caseloads and less-intensive follow-up.

Common trust and personal safety issues: A systematic review on the acceptability of health and social interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness.

BACKGROUND: Persons experiencing homelessness and vulnerable housing or those with lived experience of homelessness have worse health outcomes than individuals who are stably housed. Structural violence can dramatically affect their acceptance of interventions. We carried out a systematic review to understand the factors that influence the acceptability of social and health interventions among persons with lived experience of homelessness. METHODS: We searched through eight bibliographic databases and selected grey literature sources for articles that were published between 1994 and 2019. We selected primary studies that reported on the experiences of homeless populations interacting with practitioners and service providers working in permanent supportive housing, case management, interventions for substance use, income assistance, and women- and youth-specific interventions. Each study was independently assessed for its methodological quality. We used a framework analysis to identify key findings and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in the key findings. FINDINGS: Our search identified 11,017 citations of which 35 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. Our synthesis highlighted that individuals were marginalized, dehumanized and excluded by their lived homelessness experience. As a result, trust and personal safety were highly valued within human interactions. Lived experience of homelessness influenced attitudes toward health and social service professionals and sometimes led to reluctance to accept interventions. Physical and structural violence intersected with low self-esteem, depression and homeless-related stigma. Positive self-identity facilitated links to long-term and integrated services, peer support, and patient-centred engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with lived experience of homelessness face considerable marginalization, dehumanization and structural violence. Practitioners and social service providers should consider anti-oppressive approaches and provide, refer to, or advocate for health and structural interventions using the principles of trauma-informed care. Accepting and respecting others as they are, without judgment, may help practitioners navigate barriers to inclusiveness, equitability, and effectiveness for primary care that targets this marginalized population.