David Ponka1, Eric Agbata2, Claire Kendall3,4,5, Vicky Stergiopoulos6, Oreen Mendonca3, Olivia Magwood3, Ammar Saad3,7, Bonnie Larson8, Annie Huiru Sun3, Neil Arya9, Terry Hannigan3, Kednapa Thavorn5,7, Anne Andermann10, Peter Tugwell11, Kevin Pottie3,4. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Faculty of Health Science, University of Roehampton, London, United Kingdom. 3. C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Family Medicine and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 9. Department of Health Sciences, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 10. Department of Family Medicine and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 11. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Michele Fornaro; Elena Dragioti; Michele De Prisco; Martina Billeci; Anna Maria Mondin; Raffaella Calati; Lee Smith; Simon Hatcher; Mark Kaluzienski; Jess G Fiedorowicz; Marco Solmi; Andrea de Bartolomeis; André F Carvalho Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Andrea Wang; Katherine Francombe Pridham; Rosane Nisenbaum; Cheryl Pedersen; Rebecca Brown; Stephen W Hwang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Olivia Magwood; Amanda Hanemaayer; Ammar Saad; Ginetta Salvalaggio; Gary Bloch; Aliza Moledina; Nicole Pinto; Layla Ziha; Michael Geurguis; Alexandra Aliferis; Victoire Kpade; Neil Arya; Tim Aubry; Kevin Pottie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Dailys Garcia-Jorda; Gabriel E Fabreau; Queenie Kwan Wing Li; Alicia Polachek; Katrina Milaney; Patrick McLane; Kerry A McBrien Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: James Lachaud; Cilia Mejia-Lancheros; Anna Durbin; Rosane Nisenbaum; Ri Wang; Patricia O'Campo; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Stephen W Hwang Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 3.671