OBJECTIVE: Research suggests that social supports are associated with housing retention among adults who have experienced homelessness. Yet, we know very little about the social support context in consumers find and retain housing. We examined the ways and identified the junctures in which consumers' skills and deficits in accessing and mobilizing social supports influenced their longitudinal housing status. METHOD: We performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with VA Greater Los Angeles consumers (n = 19) with serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and a history of homelessness; interviews explored associations between longitudinal housing status (categorized as: stable, independent housing; sheltered housing, continually engaged in structured housing programs; and unstable housing) and social supports. We compared data from consumers in these 3 mutually exclusive categories. RESULTS: All participants described social support as important for finding and maintaining housing. However, participants used formal (provider/case managers) and informal (family/friends) supports in different ways. Participants in stable housing relied on formal and informal supports to obtain/maintain housing. Participants in sheltered housing primarily used formal supports, for example, case management staff. Unstably housed participants used formal and informal supports, but some of these relationships were superficial or of negative valence. Interpersonal problems were prevalent across longitudinal housing status categories. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Social context, including patterns of formal and informal support, was associated with participants' longitudinal housing status. Within interventions to end homelessness, these findings suggest the value of future research to identify, tailor, and implement practices that can help consumers improve their social resources. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Research suggests that social supports are associated with housing retention among adults who have experienced homelessness. Yet, we know very little about the social support context in consumers find and retain housing. We examined the ways and identified the junctures in which consumers' skills and deficits in accessing and mobilizing social supports influenced their longitudinal housing status. METHOD: We performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with VA Greater Los Angeles consumers (n = 19) with serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and a history of homelessness; interviews explored associations between longitudinal housing status (categorized as: stable, independent housing; sheltered housing, continually engaged in structured housing programs; and unstable housing) and social supports. We compared data from consumers in these 3 mutually exclusive categories. RESULTS: All participants described social support as important for finding and maintaining housing. However, participants used formal (provider/case managers) and informal (family/friends) supports in different ways. Participants in stable housing relied on formal and informal supports to obtain/maintain housing. Participants in sheltered housing primarily used formal supports, for example, case management staff. Unstably housed participants used formal and informal supports, but some of these relationships were superficial or of negative valence. Interpersonal problems were prevalent across longitudinal housing status categories. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Social context, including patterns of formal and informal support, was associated with participants' longitudinal housing status. Within interventions to end homelessness, these findings suggest the value of future research to identify, tailor, and implement practices that can help consumers improve their social resources. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: R Rosenheck; J Morrissey; J Lam; M Calloway; M Stolar; M Johnsen; F Randolph; M Blasinsky; H Goldman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lisa B Dixon; Faith Dickerson; Alan S Bellack; Melanie Bennett; Dwight Dickinson; Richard W Goldberg; Anthony Lehman; Wendy N Tenhula; Christine Calmes; Rebecca M Pasillas; Jason Peer; Julie Kreyenbuhl Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Stephen W Hwang; Maritt J Kirst; Shirley Chiu; George Tolomiczenko; Alex Kiss; Laura Cowan; Wendy Levinson Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Sonya Gabrielian; Elizabeth Bromley; Gerhard S Hellemann; Robert S Kern; Nicholas I Goldenson; Megan E Danley; Alexander S Young Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.906
Authors: Russell K Schutt; Mark Schultz; Chantele Mitchell-Miland; Sharon McCarthy; Matthew Chinman; Marsha Ellison Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Paul L Sacamano; Shruti H Mehta; Carl Latkin; Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia; Gregory D Kirk; Abby E Rudolph Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: William E Trick; Fred Rachman; Keiki Hinami; Jennifer C Hill; Craig Conover; Lisa Diep; Howard S Gordon; Abel Kho; David O Meltzer; Raj C Shah; Ed Stellon; Padma Thangaraj; Peter S Toepfer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 3.295