Tim Aubry1, Gary Bloch2, Vanessa Brcic3, Ammar Saad4, Olivia Magwood4, Tasnim Abdalla2, Qasem Alkhateeb4, Edward Xie5, Christine Mathew4, Terry Hannigan4, Chris Costello6, Kednapa Thavorn7, Vicky Stergiopoulos8, Peter Tugwell9, Kevin Pottie10. 1. School of Psychology and Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. CT Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa ON, Canada. 5. University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. MUHC-McGill University Ocular Pathology and Translational Research Laboratory, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada. 7. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 8. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 10. CT Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa ON, Canada. Electronic address: kpottie@uottawa.ca.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Sharon Attipoe-Dorcoo; Yinan Peng; Robert A Hahn; Ramona Finnie; Jamaicia Cobb; Alison E Cuellar; Karen M Emmons; Patrick L Remington Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Lexie R Grove; Seth A Berkowitz; Gary Cuddeback; George H Pink; Sally Clark Stearns; Marisa Elena Domino Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Catalina Turcu; Melanie Crane; Emma Hutchinson; Simon Lloyd; Kristine Belesova; Paul Wilkinson; Mike Davies Journal: Build Cities Date: 2021-08-31
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