A randomized clinical trial of tailored interventions for health promotion and recidivism reduction among homeless parolees: outcomes and cost analysis

Interventions to reduce harms related to drug use among people who experience incarceration: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mortality, suicide, self-harm, and substance use are elevated among people who are incarcerated. There is a wide range of heterogeneous interventions aimed at reducing these harms in this population. Previous reviews have focused on specific interventions or limited their findings to drug use and recidivism and have not explored interventions delivered after release from prison. Our aim is to examine the effect of interventions delivered to people who use drugs during incarceration or after release from incarceration, on a wide range of outcomes.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases up until Sept 12, 2023 for studies published from Jan 1, 1980 onwards. All studies evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention on drug use, recidivism outcomes, sexual or injecting risk behaviours, or mortality among people who use psychoactive drugs and who were currently or recently incarcerated were included. Studies without a comparator or measuring only alcohol use were excluded. Data extracted from each study included demographic characteristics, interventions, and comparisons. Pooled odds ratios and risk ratios were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses.

FINDINGS

We identified 126 eligible studies (47 randomised controlled trials and 79 observational studies) encompassing 18 interventions; receiving opioid-agonist treatment (OAT) in prison reduced the risk of death in prison (one study; hazard ratio 0·25; 95% CI 0·13-0·48), whereas receiving OAT in the first 4 weeks following release reduced risk of death in the community (two studies; relative risk 0·24; 95% CI 0·15-0·37). Therapeutic community interventions reduced re-arrest at 6-12 months (six studies; odds ratio [OR] 0·72; 95% CI 0·55-0·95) and reincarceration at 24 months (two studies; OR 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·96). There was scarce evidence that OAT and syringe service provision are effective in reducing injecting risk behaviours and needle and syringe sharing.

INTERPRETATION

There are effective interventions to reduce mortality and recidivism for people who use drugs who have been incarcerated. Nonetheless, there are also substantial gaps in the research examining the effect of interventions on risk behaviours and mortality during incarceration and a need for randomised designs examining outcomes for people who use drugs after release.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

The effectiveness of abstinence-based and harm reduction-based interventions in reducing problematic substance use in adults who are experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review

Background

Homelessness is a traumatic experience, and can have a devastating effect on those experiencing it. People who are homeless often face significant barriers when accessing public services, and have often experienced adverse childhood events, extreme social disadvantage, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, neglect, low self-esteem, poor physical and mental health, and much lower life expectancy compared to the general population. Rates of problematic substance use are disproportionately high, with many using drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of living on the street, to keep warm, or to block out memories of previous abuse or trauma. Substance dependency can also create barriers to successful transition to stable housing.

Objectives

To understand the effectiveness of different substance use interventions for adults experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

The primary source of studies for was the 4th edition of the Homelessness Effectiveness Studies Evidence and Gaps Maps (EGM). Searches for the EGM were completed in September 2021. Other potential studies were identified through a call for grey evidence, hand-searching key journals, and unpacking relevant systematic reviews.

Selection Criteria

Eligible studies were impact evaluations that involved some comparison group. We included studies that tested the effectiveness of substance use interventions, and measured substance use outcomes, for adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries.

Data Collection and Analysis

Descriptive characteristics and statistical information in included studies were coded and checked by at least two members of the review team. Studies selected for the review were assessed for confidence in the findings. Standardised effect sizes were calculated and, if a study did not provide sufficient raw data for the calculation of an effect size, author(s) were contacted to obtain these data. We used random-effects meta-analysis and robust-variance estimation procedures to synthesise effect sizes. If a study included multiple effects, we carried out a critical assessment to determine (even if only theoretically) whether the effects are likely to be dependent. Where dependent effects were identified, we used robust variance estimation to determine whether we can account for these. Where effect sizes were converted from a binary to continuous measure (or vice versa), we undertook a sensitivity analysis by running an additional analysis with these studies omitted. We also assessed the sensitivity of results to inclusion of non-randomised studies and studies classified as low confidence in findings. All included an assessment of statistical heterogeneity. Finally, we undertook analysis to assess whether publication bias was likely to be a factor in our findings. For those studies that we were unable to include in meta-analysis, we have provided a narrative synthesis of the study and its findings.

Main Results

We included 48 individual papers covering 34 unique studies. The studies covered 15, 255 participants, with all but one of the studies being from the United States and Canada. Most papers were rated as low confidence (n = 25, or 52%). By far the most common reason for studies being rated as low confidence was high rates of attrition and/or differential attrition of study participants, that fell below the What Works Clearinghouse liberal attrition standard. Eleven of the included studies were rated as medium confidence and 12 studies as high confidence. The interventions included in our analysis were more effective in reducing substance use than treatment as usual, with an overall effect size of -0.11 SD (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.27, 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the results were sensitive to the removal of low confidence studies (-0.21 SD, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.17] - 6 studies, 17 effect sizes), the removal of quasi-experimental studies (-0.14 SD, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02] - 14 studies, 41 effect sizes) and the removal of studies where an effect size had been converted from a binary to a continuous outcome (-0.08 SD, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15] - 10 studies, 31 effect sizes). This suggests that the findings are sensitive to the inclusion of lower quality studies, although unusually the average effect increases when we removed low confidence studies. The average effect for abstinence-based interventions compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) service provision was -0.28 SD (95% CI, -0.65, 0.09) (6 studies, 15 effect sizes), and for harm reduction interventions compared to a TAU service provision is close to 0 at 0.03 SD (95% CI, -0.08, 0.14) (9 studies, 30 effect sizes). The confidence intervals for both estimates are wide and crossing zero. For both, the comparison groups are primarily abstinence-based, with the exception of two studies where the comparison group condition was unclear. We found that both Assertative Community Treatment and Intensive Case Management were no better than treatment as usual, with average effect on substance use of 0.03 SD, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.13] and -0.47 SD, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.21] 0.05 SD, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39] respectively. These findings are consistent with wider research, and it is important to note that we only examined the effect on substance use outcomes (these interventions can be effective in terms of other outcomes). We found that CM interventions can be effective in reducing substance use compared to treatment as usual, with an average effect of -0.47 SD, 95% CI (-0.72, -0.21). All of these results need to be considered in light of the quality of the underlying evidence. There were six further interventions where we undertook narrative synthesis. These syntheses suggest that Group Work, Harm Reduction Psychotherapy, and Therapeutic Communities are effective in reducing substance use, with mixed results found for Motivational Interviewing and Talking Therapies (including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). The narrative synthesis suggested that Residential Rehabilitation was no better than treatment as usual in terms of reducing substance use for our population of interest.

Authors' Conclusions

Although our analysis of harm reduction versus treatment as usual, abstinence versus treatment as usual, and harm reduction versus abstinence suggests that these different approaches make little real difference to the outcomes achieved in comparison to treatment as usual. The findings suggest that some individual interventions are more effective than others. The overall low quality of the primary studies suggests that further primary impact research could be beneficial.

Exploring the effect of case management in homelessness per components: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation, with meta-analysis and thematic synthesis

Background

Adequate housing is a basic human right. The many millions of people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have a lower life expectancy and more physical and mental health problems. Practical and effective interventions to provide appropriate housing are a public health priority.

Objectives

To summarise the best available evidence relating to the components of case-management interventions for PEH via a mixed methods review that explored both the effectiveness of interventions and factors that may influence its impact.

Search Methods

We searched 10 bibliographic databases from 1990 to March 2021. We also included studies from Campbell Collaboration Evidence and Gap Maps and searched 28 web sites. Reference lists of included papers and systematic reviews were examined and experts contacted for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

We included all randomised and non-randomised study designs exploring case management interventions where a comparison group was used. The primary outcome of interest was homelessness. Secondary outcomes included health, wellbeing, employment and costs. We also included all studies where data were collected on views and experiences that may impact on implementation.

Data Collection and Analysis

We assessed risk of bias using tools developed by the Campbell Collaboration. We conducted meta-analyses of the intervention studies where possible and carried out a framework synthesis of a set of implementation studies identified by purposive sampling to represent the most 'rich' and 'thick' data.

Main Results

We included 64 intervention studies and 41 implementation studies. The evidence base was dominated by studies from the USA and Canada. Participants were largely (though not exclusively) people who were literally homeless, that is, living on the streets or in shelters, and who had additional support needs. Many studies were assessed as having a medium or high risk of bias. However, there was some consistency in outcomes across studies that improved confidence in the main findings.

Case Management and Housing Outcomes

Case management of any description was superior to usual care for homelessness outcomes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.51 [95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.71, -0.30]; p < 0.01). For studies included in the meta-analyses, Housing First had the largest observed impact, followed by Assertive Community Treatment, Critical Time Intervention and Intensive Case Management. The only statistically significant difference was between Housing First and Intensive Case Management (SMD = -0.6 [-1.1, -0.1]; p = 0.03) at ≥12 months. There was not enough evidence to compare the above approaches with standard case management within the meta-analyses. A narrative comparison across all studies was inconclusive, though suggestive of a trend in favour of more intensive approaches.

Case Management and Mental Health Outcomes

The overall evidence suggested that case management of any description was not more or less effective compared to usual care for an individual's mental health (SMD = 0.02 [-0.15, 0.18]; p = 0.817).

Case Management and Other Outcomes

Based on meta-analyses, case management was superior to usual care for capability and wellbeing outcomes up to 1 year (an improvement of around one-third of an SMD; p < 0.01) but was not statistically significantly different for substance use outcomes, physical health, and employment.

Case Management Components

For homelessness outcomes, there was a non-significant trend for benefits to be greater in the medium term (≤3 years) compared to long term (>3 years) (SMD = -0.64 [-1.04, -0.24] vs. -0.27 [-0.53, 0]; p = 0.16) and for in-person meetings in comparison to mixed (in-person and remote) approaches (SMD = -0.73 [-1.25,-0.21]) versus -0.26 [-0.5,-0.02]; p = 0.13). There was no evidence from meta-analyses to suggest that an individual case manager led to better outcomes then a team, and interventions with no dedicated case manager may have better outcomes than those with a named case manager (SMD = -0.36 [-0.55, -0.18] vs. -1.00 [-2.00, 0.00]; p = 0.02). There was not enough evidence from meta-analysis to assess whether the case manager should have a professional qualification, or if frequency of contact, case manager availability or conditionality (barriers due to conditions attached to service provision) influenced outcomes. However, the main theme from implementation studies concerned barriers where conditions were attached to services.

Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness

No conclusions could be drawn from meta-analysis other than a trend for greater reductions in homelessness for persons with high complexity of need (two or more support needs in addition to homelessness) as compared to those with medium complexity of need (one additional support need); effect sizes were SMD = -0.61 [-0.91, -0.31] versus -0.36 [-0.68, -0.05]; p = 0.3.

The Broader Context of Delivery of Case Management Programmes

Other major themes from the implementation studies included the importance of interagency partnership; provision for non-housing support and training needs of PEH (such as independent living skills), intensive community support following the move to new housing; emotional support and training needs of case managers; and an emphasis on housing safety, security and choice.

Cost Effectiveness

The 12 studies with cost data provided contrasting results and no clear conclusions. Some case management costs may be largely off-set by reductions in the use of other services. Cost estimates from three North American studies were $45-52 for each additional day housed.

Authors' Conclusions

Case management interventions improve housing outcomes for PEH with one or more additional support needs, with more intense interventions leading to greater benefits. Those with greater support needs may gain greater benefit. There is also evidence for improvements to capabilities and wellbeing. Current approaches do not appear to lead to mental health benefits. In terms of case management components, there is evidence in support of a team approach and in-person meetings and, from the implementation evidence, that conditions associated with service provision should be minimised. The approach within Housing First could explain the finding that overall benefits may be greater than for other types of case management. Four of its principles were identified as key themes within the implementation studies: No conditionality, offer choice, provide an individualised approach and support community building. Recommendations for further research include an expansion of the research base outside North America and further exploration of case management components and intervention cost-effectiveness.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map

Background

Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions.

Objectives

The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care.

Search Methods

We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies.

Selection Criteria

Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations.

Main Results

We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration.

Authors' Conclusions

Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Strategies to improve vaccination rates in people who are homeless: A systematic review

People who are homeless experience higher rates of vaccine-preventable disease, including COVID-19, than the general population, and poorer associated health outcomes. However, delivering vaccinations to people who are homeless is complex, and there is a lack of evidence to inform practice in this area. The aim of this systematic review is to: (a) identify, (b) analyse the characteristics of, and (c) evaluate the outcomes of, strategies to improve vaccination rates in people who are homeless. Literature was retrieved from eight electronic databases. Studies undertaken in high-income countries, published in English, in a peer-reviewed journal, and in full-text were considered. No limits were placed on study design or date. A total of 1,508 articles were retrieved and, after the removal of duplicates, 637 were screened. Twenty-three articles, reporting on nineteen separate vaccination strategies for hepatitis A/B, influenza, herpes zoster, invasive pneumococcal disease, and diphtheria in people who are homeless, were selected for inclusion. All the strategies were effective at improving vaccination rates in, people who are homeless. Most strategies involved vaccination clinics and most were delivered, at least in part, by nurses. Other characteristics of successful strategies included: delivering vaccinations at convenient locations; using accelerated vaccination schedules (if available); vaccinating at the first appointment, regardless of whether a person's vaccination history or serological status were known (if clinically safe); operating for a longer duration; offering training to staff about working with people who are homeless; widely promoting clinics; considering education, reminders, incentives, and co-interventions; ensuring no out-of-pocket costs; and working collaboratively with stakeholders, including people who are homeless themselves. These findings will inform evidence-based vaccination strategies, including for COVID-19, in people who are homeless, and improve associated health outcomes in this at-risk, hard-to-reach group.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

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.