OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether outcomes in housing, clinical status, and well-being of persons with severe mental illness and a history of homelessness differ between those in supported housing and those in community residences, two housing arrangements that substantially differ in the level of independence that is offered to its tenants. METHODS: A quasi-experimental 18-month follow-up study was conducted with 157 persons newly entering supported housing and community residences. The housing models accepted persons with similar illness characteristics and homelessness histories, so that the inability to randomly assign tenants to housing types could be compensated for by propensity scoring methods. Tenure in housing was examined by using survival models. Analyses of other outcomes used hierarchical linear and regression models in both intent-to-treat (N=139) and true-stayer (N=80) analyses. RESULTS: Tenure in housing did not differ by housing type. Substantial proportions of tenants in both models remained housed during the follow-up period. Tenants in supported housing reported greater housing satisfaction in terms of autonomy and economic viability. Over time some tenants in supported housing reported greater feelings of isolation. Independent of housing type, symptoms of depression or anxiety at housing entry increased the risk of poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The models of supported housing were viable portals of entry into community housing for homeless persons, even for consumers with characteristics indicating that they would have been more likely to be placed in community residences. The results suggest that greater clinical attention should be paid to persons who exhibit depression or anxiety when entering housing.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether outcomes in housing, clinical status, and well-being of persons with severe mental illness and a history of homelessness differ between those in supported housing and those in community residences, two housing arrangements that substantially differ in the level of independence that is offered to its tenants. METHODS: A quasi-experimental 18-month follow-up study was conducted with 157 persons newly entering supported housing and community residences. The housing models accepted persons with similar illness characteristics and homelessness histories, so that the inability to randomly assign tenants to housing types could be compensated for by propensity scoring methods. Tenure in housing was examined by using survival models. Analyses of other outcomes used hierarchical linear and regression models in both intent-to-treat (N=139) and true-stayer (N=80) analyses. RESULTS: Tenure in housing did not differ by housing type. Substantial proportions of tenants in both models remained housed during the follow-up period. Tenants in supported housing reported greater housing satisfaction in terms of autonomy and economic viability. Over time some tenants in supported housing reported greater feelings of isolation. Independent of housing type, symptoms of depression or anxiety at housing entry increased the risk of poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The models of supported housing were viable portals of entry into community housing for homeless persons, even for consumers with characteristics indicating that they would have been more likely to be placed in community residences. The results suggest that greater clinical attention should be paid to persons who exhibit depression or anxiety when entering housing.
Authors: Ellen E Lee; Averria Sirkin Martin; Christopher N Kaufmann; Jinyuan Liu; Julie Kangas; Rebecca E Daly; Xin M Tu; Colin A Depp; Dilip V Jeste Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Claire E Kendall; Tim Aubry; Olivia Magwood; Anne Andermann; Ginetta Salvalaggio; David Ponka; Gary Bloch; Vanessa Brcic; Eric Agbata; Kednapa Thavorn; Terry Hannigan; Andrew Bond; Susan Crouse; Ritika Goel; Esther Shoemaker; Jean Zhuo Jing Wang; Sebastian Mott; Harneel Kaur; Christine Mathew; Syeda Shanza Hashmi; Ammar Saad; Thomas Piggott; Neil Arya; Nicole Kozloff; Michaela Beder; Dale Guenter; Wendy Muckle; Stephen Hwang; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Peter Tugwell Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Claire E Kendall; Tim Aubry; Olivia Magwood; Anne Andermann; Ginetta Salvalaggio; David Ponka; Gary Bloch; Vanessa Brcic; Eric Agbata; Kednapa Thavorn; Terry Hannigan; Andrew Bond; Susan Crouse; Ritika Goel; Esther Shoemaker; Jean Zhuo Jing Wang; Sebastian Mott; Harneel Kaur; Christine Mathew; Syeda Shanza Hashmi; Ammar Saad; Thomas Piggott; Neil Arya; Nicole Kozloff; Michaela Beder; Dale Guenter; Wendy Muckle; Stephen Hwang; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Peter Tugwell Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Laurel A Copeland; Alexander L Miller; Deborah E Welsh; John F McCarthy; John E Zeber; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 9.308