A randomized control trial of a chronic care intervention for homeless women with alcohol use problems

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.

Interventions to improve the mental health of women experiencing homelessness: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Homelessness is a growing public health challenge in the United Kingdom and internationally, with major consequences for physical and mental health. Women represent a particularly vulnerable subgroup of the homeless population, with some evidence suggesting that they suffer worse mental health outcomes than their male counterparts. Interventions aimed at improving the lives of homeless women have the potential to enhance mental health and reduce the burden of mental illness in this population. This review synthesised the evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of interventions which aim to improve mental health outcomes in homeless women.

METHODS

Five electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, ASSIA and EMBASE, were searched. Studies were included if they measured the effectiveness or acceptability of any intervention in improving mental health outcomes in homeless women. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool. A narrative summary of the study findings in relation to the research questions was produced.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, there was moderate evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in improving mental health outcomes in homeless women, both immediately post-intervention and at later follow-up. The strongest evidence was for the effectiveness of psychotherapy interventions. There was also evidence that homeless women find interventions aimed at improving mental health outcomes acceptable and helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in intervention and study methodology limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the extent to which different categories of intervention improve mental health outcomes in homeless women. Future research should focus on lesser-studied intervention categories, subgroups of homeless women and mental health outcomes. More in-depth qualitative research of factors that enhance or diminish the acceptability of mental health interventions to homeless women is also required.

Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study

Background

There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services.

Objectives

This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated.

Design and setting

The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model.

Participants

People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders.

Results

The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.

Limitations

There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model.

Conclusions

Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Logic modelling as hermeneutic praxis: Bringing knowledge systems into view during comprehensive primary health care planning for homelessness in Australia

Logic modelling is used widely in health promotion planning for complex health and social problems. It is often undertaken collaboratively with stakeholders across sectors that hold and enact different institutional approaches. We use hermeneutic philosophy to explore how knowledge is 'lived' by - and unfolds differently for - cross-sectoral stakeholders during comprehensive primary healthcare service planning. An Organisational Action Research partnership was established with a non-government organisation designing comprehensive primary health care for individuals experiencing homelessness in Adelaide, Australia. Grey literature, stakeholder input, academic feedback, a targeted literature review and evidence synthesis were integrated in iterative cycles to inform and refine the logic model. Diverse knowledge systems are active when cross-sectoral stakeholders collaborate on logic models for comprehensive primary health care planning. Considering logic modelling as a hermeneutic praxis helps to foreground and explore these differences. In our case, divergent ideas emerged in how health/wellbeing and trust were conceptualised; language had different meanings across sectors; and the outcomes and data sought were nuanced for various collaborators. We explicate these methodological insights and also contribute our evidence-informed, collaboratively-derived model for design of a comprehensive primary health care service with populations experiencing homelessness. We outline the value of considering cross-sectoral logic modelling as hermeneutic praxis. Engaging with points of difference in cross-sectoral knowledge systems can strengthen logic modelling processes, partnerships and potential outcomes for complex and comprehensive primary health care services.

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.

Racial Health Equity and Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review

IMPORTANCE

Social needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Sources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was "conceptually thoughtful" for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were "analytically informative" for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity).

FINDINGS

Of 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.

Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone).

METHODS

The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme.

RESULTS

The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.

Psychosocial Interventions for Alcohol and/or Drug Misuse and Use Disorders in Women: A Systematic Review

Background: Although men and women who misuse substances have different needs, no rigorous systematic literature review has been conducted examining psychosocial substance use interventions for women across a broad range of types of therapeutic approaches and populations. Materials and Methods: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used to guide this review. English language, peer-reviewed research articles indexed in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, and Web of Science through May 6, 2021, were searched. Peer-reviewed articles were included in the review if they were written in English; described a randomized controlled trial of a psychosocial intervention to reduce substance misuse and related problems in women; and reported quantitative data on alcohol or illicit drug use as an outcome that was linked to the interventions. Results: A total of 51 articles met eligibility criteria, reflecting a broad array of interventions with different levels of methodological rigor. Several, but not most, interventions were tailored to meet the needs of specific subgroups of women, but evidence regarding the efficacy of tailoring was inconclusive. Overall, 61% of studies reported one or more positive substance-related intervention effects, with target substance (alcohol only vs. other drugs only or both alcohol and other drugs) and intervention dosage associated with intervention success. Conclusions: Fewer studies targeting alcohol only reported one or more positive intervention outcomes. This warrants further study, given that polysubstance use is the norm, not the exception. Future research might also focus on reducing treatment barriers to women, as this has the potential to improve overall treatment outcomes for this population.

Post-Traumatic Bio-Behavioral Rehabilitation of Adult Female Victims

Objective

To determine if low resting basal AM cortisol and flat diurnal cortisol slope that has been reported in female abuse victims, which is dysregulated in the same way in female violent perpetrators, could be corrected and if healthier diurnal cortisol patterns are associated with less aggression in adult female victims.

Design and Methods

A non-experimental, naturalistic study evaluated if bio-behavioral rehabilitation could occur for females living in a Delaware homeless mission and participating in their programs. Basal salivary cortisol (AM, PM & slope), aggression, neurological conditions, general health, alcohol use, having been a victim of abuse, religion, spirituality and forgiveness were evaluated over one month between 2018 and 2019.

Results

T tests revealed significant improvement in mean cortisol (AM, PM & slope), aggression, emotional/ behavioral dyscontrol, and health over one month while participating in the mission’s programs. Paired t-tests however were only significant for aggression and health. Healthier cortisol was significantly correlated with greater time since last alcohol, greater time since last abuse, less aggression, better health and greater religion, spirituality and forgiveness.

Conclusion

Community programs could be cost effective methods of post-traumatic bio-behavioral rehabilitation. Forgiveness may play a critical role for abuse victims. A larger sample and more settings are needed, although these findings are promising.

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.

Impact of Continuing Care on Recovery From Substance Use Disorder

Continuing care is widely believed to be an important component of effective treatment for substance use disorder, particularly for those individuals with greater problem severity. The purpose of this review was to examine the research literature on continuing care for alcohol and drug use disorders, including studies that addressed efficacy, moderators, mechanisms of action, and economic impact. This narrative review first considered findings from prior reviews (published through 2014), followed by a more detailed examination of studies published more recently. The review found that research has generally supported the efficacy of continuing care for both adolescents and adults, but the picture is complex. Reviews find relatively small effects when results from individual studies are combined. However, continuing care of longer duration that includes more active efforts to keep patients engaged may produce more consistently positive results. Moreover, patients at higher risk for relapse may benefit to a greater degree from continuing care. Several newer approaches for the provision of continuing care show promise. These include incentives for abstinence and automated mobile health interventions to augment more conventional counselor-delivered interventions. Primary care can be used to provide medications for opioid and alcohol use disorders over extended periods, although more research is needed to determine the optimal mix of behavioral treatments and other psychosocial services in this setting. Regardless of the intervention selected for use, the status of most patients will change and evolve over time, and interventions need to include provisions to assess patients on a regular basis and to change or adapt treatment when warranted.

Evidence based models of care for the treatment of alcohol use disorder in primary health care settings: a systematic review

Background

Pharmacological and behavioural treatments for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are effective but the uptake is limited. Primary care could be a key setting for identification and continuous care for AUD due to accessibility, low cost and acceptability to patients.

We aimed to synthesise the literature regarding differential models of care for the management of AUD in primary health care settings.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of articles published worldwide (1998-present) using the following databases; Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase. The Grey Matters Tool guided the grey literature search. We selected randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of a primary care model in the management of AUD. Two researchers independently assessed and then reached agreement on the included studies. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 for the critical appraisal.

Results

Eleven studies (4186 participants) were included. We categorised the studies into ‘lower’ versus ‘higher’ intensity given the varying intensity of clinical care evaluated across the studies. Significant differences in treatment uptake were reported by most studies. The uptake of AUD medication was reported in 5 out of 6 studies that offered AUD medication. Three studies reported a significantly higher uptake of AUD medication in the intervention group. A significant reduction in alcohol use was reported in two out of the five studies with lower intensity of care, and three out of six studies with higher intensity of care.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that models of care in primary care settings can increase treatment uptake (e.g. psychosocial and/or pharmacotherapy) although results for alcohol-related outcomes were mixed. More research is required to determine which specific patient groups are suitable for AUD treatment in primary health care settings and to identify which models and components are most effective.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42019120293.

Treatment Interventions for Women With Alcohol Use Disorder

Women with alcohol use disorder (AUD) experience more barriers to AUD treatment and are less likely to access treatment than men with AUD. A literature review identified several barriers to women seeking help: low perception of a need for treatment; guilt and shame; co-occurring disorders; employment, economic, and health insurance disparities; childcare responsibilities; and fear of child protective services. Women entering treatment present with more severe AUD and more complex psychological, social, and service needs than men. Treatment program elements that may reduce barriers to AUD treatment include provision of childcare, prenatal care, treatment for co-occurring psychological problems, and supplemental social services. Research has suggested that outcomes for women are best when treatment is provided in women-only programs that include female-specific content. To date, research on treatments tailored to the individual needs of women is limited, but research on mechanisms of change has suggested the importance of targeting anxiety and depression, affiliative statements in treatment, abstinence self-efficacy, coping skills, autonomy, and social support for abstinence. Future research should focus on early interventions, linkages between primary care or mental health clinics and AUD treatment settings, and integrated treatments for co-occurring AUD and other disorders. Further research should also explore novel treatment delivery approaches such as digital platforms and peer support groups.

Strategies to improve treatment utilization for substance use disorders: A systematic review of intervention studies

BACKGROUND

Many people who need specialty treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) do not receive it. Clinical interventions could increase treatment utilization but are not routinely used. This systematic review aimed to describe clinical interventions that may increase SUD specialty treatment utilization (i.e., treatment initiation, attendance, meaningful engagement) and to determine which intervention(s) most consistently increase treatment utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of clinical intervention studies (published in English between 2000 and 2017) reporting outcomes relevant to specialty SUD treatment utilization. Outcomes were treatment initiation, attendance, and meaningful engagement. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with bias scores < 3 were included in a synthesis of results. Proportions of positive to negative utilization outcomes were calculated for each low-bias RCT; studies with 50% positive outcomes or more were considered "majority-positive". Studies were categorized by theory-based approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs had low risk of bias and were synthesized. Among intervention types with two or more studies, cognitive-behavioral (100% majority-positive) and coordinated care (67% majority-positive) interventions were most likely to increase treatment initiation, while 12-step promotion interventions were most likely to increase treatment attendance (50% majority-positive). One study (12-step promotion) measured meaningful engagement, with majority-positive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of clinical interventions promoting specialty SUD treatment utilization provided preliminary evidence that cognitive-behavioral and coordinated care interventions may increase treatment initiation, while 12-step promotion interventions may promote treatment attendance. More quality studies and greater consistency in treatment utilization measurement are needed.

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.

Substance use, stressful life events and mental health: A longitudinal study among homeless women in Madrid (Spain)

The objectives of this study were: (1) to assess the prevalence of substance use among homeless women; (2) to examine the correlates for drug abuse; (3) to analyze paths between early stressful life events, drug abuse and mental health. The methodology was a longitudinal study of women homeless in Madrid (Spain), who were followed for a 24 months period. There were 138 participants interviewed at baseline and 73 participants interviewed at follow-up. We ran bivariate and multivariate analysis to examine the correlates for drug abuse. We also performed path analysis to test the interconnections between stressful life events, drug abuse and mental health. Results at baseline showed that 83.3% of participants had consumed at least one substance in the previous month. Tobacco was the most common substance consumed (70.1%), followed by sedatives (48.6%), alcohol (36.2%), methadone (13.7%), cocaine (7.2%), cannabis (6.5%) and heroin (5.1%). In addition, women who met criteria for drug abuse (19.6% of the sample) were more likely to be younger, have suffered adverse experiences during childhood, have engaged in prostitution, and have ever attempted suicide, in comparison with women who did not meet criteria for drug abuse. Path analysis supported that early stressful life events increased the vulnerability for subsequent negative outcomes among homeless women. These findings have significant implications for understanding how to implement programs for homeless women in Spain.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized control trials of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for homeless adults

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of psychosocial interventions for homeless adults on their psychosocial outcomes.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed for critical appraisal and synthesis of the included studies.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of studies published before 10 September 2018 was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL.

REVIEW METHODS

The review included randomized controlled trials conducting psychosocial interventions and assessing psychosocial outcomes for homeless adults. After systematically describing study and intervention characteristics, we conducted meta-analyses by the type of outcome and subgroup meta-analyses by the type of intervention and outcome. Fourteen studies were included in this review and 11 were included in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A significant effect of psychosocial interventions in reducing anxiety and enhancing mental health status among homeless adults was noted.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analyses showed that psychosocial interventions may reduce anxiety and enhance the mental health status of homeless people. Specifically, we suggest that relaxation response training may be effective in improving anxiety and mental health status and cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce anxiety.

IMPACT

Although psychosocial interventions for homeless persons have been implemented for a decade, their impact for psychosocial outcomes among homeless adults has not been evaluated. This review suggest that psychosocial interventions may improve anxiety and mental health status among homeless adults. The findings of the present study may provide directions for developing psychosocial interventions to help vulnerable homeless adults in managing psychological outcomes.

Characterizing Alcohol Use Behaviors among Homeless Men and Women

Objectives: In this study, we characterized alcohol use behaviors by sex among sheltered homeless adults and explored associations with health and readiness to change drinking behaviors. Methods: Participants (N = 581; 63.7% men; Mage = 43.6, 29.4% white) self-reported alcohol use and readiness to change drinking behaviors. Sex differences were analyzed via Wilcoxon ranksum, chi-square tests, logistic regression, and ANCOVAs. Results: Overall, 38.5% of the sample met criteria for current at-risk drinking, 39.7% self-reported a history of alcohol problems, and 22.9% reported having a formal alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis. Among current alcohol users, 83.8% reported at-risk drinking. Men had more drinks per drinking day, more drinks per week, and more drinking days per week when compared to women. No sex differences were found for at-risk drinking, self-reported alcohol problems, probable alcohol abuse/dependence, AUD diagnosis, readiness to change drinking, or recent alcohol/substance abuse counseling. Conclusions: High rates of at-risk drinking were found among alcohol users. Homeless men and women did not exhibit differences in several manifestations of problematic alcohol use. Alcohol use interventions might be equally appealing to both sexes given equivalent readiness to change drinking; however, rates of recent treatment receipt were low.

Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Adolescents and Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Unhealthy alcohol use is common, increasing, and a leading cause of premature mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 12, 2017; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies and randomized clinical trials of screening and counseling to reduce unhealthy alcohol use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Counseling trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drinks per week, exceeding recommended limits, heavy use episodes, abstinence (for pregnant women), and other health, family, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen studies (N = 314 466) were included. No studies examined benefits or harms of screening programs to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. For adolescents (10 studies [n = 171 363]), 1 study (n = 225) reported a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86) using the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) to detect the full spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use. For adults (35 studies [n = 114 182]), brief screening instruments commonly reported sensitivity and specificity between 0.70 and 0.85. Two trials of the effects of interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents (n = 588) found mixed results: one reported a benefit in high-risk but not moderate-risk drinkers, and the other reported a statistically significant reduction in drinking frequency for boys but not girls; neither reported health or related outcomes. Across all populations (68 studies [n = 36 528]), counseling interventions were associated with a decrease in drinks per week (weighted mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.0]; 32 studies [37 effects; n = 15 974]), the proportion exceeding recommended drinking limits (odds ratio [OR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67]; 15 studies [16 effects; n = 9760]), and the proportion reporting a heavy use episode (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.77]; 12 studies [14 effects; n = 8108]), and an increase in the proportion of pregnant women reporting abstinence (OR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.43 to 3.56]; 5 studies [n = 796]) after 6 to 12 months. Health outcomes were sparsely reported and generally did not demonstrate group differences in effect. There was no evidence that these interventions could be harmful.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults, screening instruments feasible for use in primary care are available that can effectively identify people with unhealthy alcohol use, and counseling interventions in those who screen positive are associated with reductions in unhealthy alcohol use. There was no evidence that these interventions have unintended harmful effects.

Treatment for Alcohol Dependence in Primary Care Compared to Outpatient Specialist Treatment-A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aim

To investigate if treatment for alcohol dependence in primary care is as effective as specialist addiction care.

Method

Randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, between groups parallel design, not blinded. The non-inferiority limit was set to 50 grams of alcohol per week. About 288 adults fulfilling ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence were randomized to treatment in primary care (men n = 82, women n = 62) or specialist care (men n = 77, women n = 67). General practitioners at 12 primary care centers received 1-day training in a treatment manual for alcohol dependence. Primary outcome was change in weekly alcohol consumption at 6-months follow-up compared with baseline, as measured with timeline follow back. Secondary outcomes were heavy drinking days, severity of dependence, consequences of drinking, psychological health, quality of life, satisfaction with treatment and biomarkers.

Results

Intention-to-treat analysis (n = 228) was statistically inconclusive, and could not confirm non-inferiority for the primary outcome, since the high end of the confidence interval exceeded 50 grams (estimated mean weekly alcohol consumption was 30 grams higher in primary care compared with specialist care; 95% confidence interval -10.20; 69.72). However, treatment in specialist care was not significantly superior to primary care (P = 0.146). Subanalysis suggests that specialist care was superior to primary care only for patients with high severity of dependence.

Conclusions

Treatment for alcohol dependence in primary care is a promising approach, especially for individuals with low to moderate dependence. This may be a way to broaden the base of treatment for alcohol dependence, reducing the current treatment gap.

Improving Health Care Management in Primary Care for Homeless People: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Homeless people have poorer health status than the general population. They need complex care management, because of associated medical troubles (somatic and psychiatric) and social difficulties. We aimed to describe the main characteristics of the primary care programs that take care of homeless people, and to identify which could be most relevant.

METHODS

We performed a literature review that included articles which described and evaluated primary care programs for homeless people.

RESULTS

Most of the programs presented a team-based approach, multidisciplinary and/or integrated care. They often proposed co-located services between somatic health services, mental health services and social support services. They also tried to answer to the specific needs of homeless people. Some characteristics of these programs were associated with significant positive outcomes: tailored primary care organizations, clinic orientation, multidisciplinary team-based models which included primary care physicians and clinic nurses, integration of social support, and engagement in the community's health.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary health care programs that aimed at taking care of the homeless people should emphasize a multidisciplinary approach and should consider an integrated (mental, somatic and social) care model.

Collaborative Care for Opioid and Alcohol Use Disorders in Primary Care: The SUMMIT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Primary care offers an important and underutilized setting to deliver treatment for opioid and/or alcohol use disorders (OAUD). Collaborative care (CC) is effective but has not been tested for OAUD.

Objective

To determine whether CC for OAUD improves delivery of evidence-based treatments for OAUD and increases self-reported abstinence compared with usual primary care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized clinical trial of 377 primary care patients with OAUD was conducted in 2 clinics in a federally qualified health center. Participants were recruited from June 3, 2014, to January 15, 2016, and followed for 6 months.

Interventions

Of the 377 participants, 187 were randomized to CC and 190 were randomized to usual care; 77 (20.4%) of the participants were female, of whom 39 (20.9%) were randomized to CC and 38 (20.0%) were randomized to UC. The mean (SD) age of all respondents at baseline was 42 (12.0) years, 41(11.7) years for the CC group, and 43 (12.2) yearsfor the UC group. Collaborative care was a system-level intervention, designed to increase the delivery of either a 6-session brief psychotherapy treatment and/or medication-assisted treatment with either sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorders or long-acting injectable naltrexone for alcohol use disorders. Usual care participants were told that the clinic provided OAUD treatment and given a number for appointment scheduling and list of community referrals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were use of any evidence-based treatment for OAUD and self-reported abstinence from opioids or alcohol at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) initiation and engagement measures, abstinence from other substances, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, and consequences from OAUD.

Results

At 6 months, the proportion of participants who received any OAUD treatment was higher in the CC group compared with usual care (73 [39.0%] vs 32 [16.8%]; logistic model adjusted OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 2.32-6.79; P < .001). A higher proportion of CC participants reported abstinence from opioids or alcohol at 6 months (32.8% vs 22.3%); after linear probability model adjustment for covariates (β = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-0.23; P = .03). In secondary analyses, the proportion meeting the HEDIS initiation and engagement measures was also higher among CC participants (initiation, 31.6% vs 13.7%; adjusted OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.02-6.20; P < .001; engagement, 15.5% vs 4.2%; adjusted OR, 5.89; 95% CI, 2.43-14.32; P < .001) as was abstinence from opioids, cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, and any alcohol (26.3% vs 15.6%; effect estimate, β = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.23; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among adults with OAUD in primary care, the SUMMIT collaborative care intervention resulted in significantly more access to treatment and abstinence from alcohol and drugs at 6 months, than usual care.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01810159.

Homeless women's service use, barriers, and motivation for participating in substance use treatment

BACKGROUND

Homeless women are at high risk for substance use disorder (SUD), and are a growing proportion of the homeless population. However, homeless women experience barriers to engaging in substance use services.

OBJECTIVES

Among homeless women with SUD, to explore service use, motivation to change, service barriers, and willingness to have substance use and mental health problems addressed in primary health care.

METHODS

Women with SUD were sampled from 11 Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) primary care clinics in 9 states, yielding 241 with either an alcohol or drug use disorder who then completed questions about SUD services.

RESULTS

Over 60% of women with dual alcohol and drug use disorders used some type of SUD service in the past year, while 52% with a drug only disorder, and 44% with an alcohol only disorder used services. The most mentioned barrier to service use was depression, but cost, wait time, where to find treatment, and facilities located too far away, were also frequently noted. A large proportion across all groups indicated high motivation for treatment and willingness to discuss their SUD in a primary care setting.

CONCLUSION

There are continued barriers to SUD service use for homeless women despite high motivation for treatment, and willingness to be asked about SUD and mental health problems in primary care. HCH primary care sites should more systematically ask about SUD and mental health issues and address women's expressed need for support groups and alternative therapies to more holistically address their SUD needs.

Improving outcomes for homeless people with alcohol disorders: a multi-program community-based approach

Background: Relatively few community-based programs have been found to be helpful for homeless people with alcohol disorders, even though this group represents a high-risk, vulnerable population prone to poor outcomes.Aims: This study sought to implement and evaluate intensive community-based programs for homeless people with alcohol disorders.Method: The project worked closely with a homeless outreach team for referrals, and then provided two different, intensive substance abuse treatment approaches matched to the needs of two subgroups: homeless individuals with alcohol disorders without severe mental illness received community reinforcement approach (CRA) and case management services, while those with alcohol and severe mental illness were assigned to assertive community treatment and integrated dual disorders (ACT/IDDT) services. The study enrolled 322 homeless people with alcohol disorders and outcomes were assessed at six months and program discharge.Results: Participants improved significantly over the first six months in a number of outcome areas, including substance abuse, mental health, housing, employment and health; progress generally remained stable between six months and discharge.Conclusions: Community-based programs that coordinate with mobile outreach teams and then provide CRA and ACT/IDDT appear to be promising approaches for helping individuals with alcohol disorders out of homelessness and into recovery.

Prevalence and predictors of substance use disorders among homeless women seeking primary care: An 11 site survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Homeless women have shown high rates of substance use disorders (SUD), but many studies are more than a decade old, limited in geographic location, or focus only on women living outdoors or in shelters. The purpose of this study was to obtain a more current and representative sample of homeless women and the prevalence and predictors of substance use disorders among women seeking primary care at Health Care for the Homeless clinics across the US.

METHODS

Eleven Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) clinics in nine states contributed proportionally to a sample of n = 780 female patients who completed a self-administered survey including demographics, housing history, health, mental health, and drug and alcohol use.

RESULTS

Compared to the general population of women, rates were four times higher for an alcohol use disorder, and 12 times higher for a drug use disorder.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate a significant need for SUD services, with an equally high need for mental health services. In addition, high rates of victimization and use of tobacco, and overall poor health status, indicate overall health disparities.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Addressing barriers to full integration of substance use and mental health services, such as improving screening, reimbursement, clinician training, and addressing biases about motivation of this population to engage in treatment, are necessary to improve the health of women seeking care in HCH settings. (Am J Addict 2017;26:680-688).

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

BACKGROUND

Most patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.

METHODS

The CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale.

CONCLUSION

The CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

How Feasible is Multiple Time Point Web-Based Data Collection with Individuals Experiencing Street Homelessness?

Three barriers investigators often encounter when conducting longitudinal work with homeless or other marginalized populations are difficulty tracking participants, high rates of no-shows for follow-up interviews, and high rates of loss to follow-up. Recent research has shown that homeless populations have substantial access to information technologies, including mobile devices and computers. These technologies have the potential both to make longitudinal data collection with homeless populations easier and to minimize some of these methodological challenges. This pilot study's purpose was to test whether individuals who were homeless and sleeping on the streets-the "street homeless"-would answer questions remotely through a web-based data collection system at regular "follow-up" intervals. We attempted to simulate longitudinal data collection in a condensed time period. Participants (N = 21) completed an in-person baseline interview. Each participant was given a remotely reloadable gift card. Subsequently, weekly for 8 weeks, participants were sent an email with a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire. Participants were given 48 h to complete each questionnaire. Data were collected about life on the streets, service use, community inclusion, substance use, and high-risk sexual behaviors. Ten dollars was remotely loaded onto each participant's gift card when they completed the questionnaire within the completion window. A substantial number of participants (67% of the total sample and 86% of the adjusted sample) completed at least seven out of the eight follow-up questionnaires. Most questionnaires were completed at public libraries, but several were completed at other types of locations (social service agencies, places of employment, relative/friend/acquaintance's domiciles, or via mobile phone). Although some of the questions were quite sensitive, very few participants skipped any questions. The only variables associated with questionnaire completion were frequency of computer use and education-both positive associations. This pilot study suggests that collecting longitudinal data online may be feasible with a subpopulation of persons experiencing homelessness. We suspect that participant follow-up rates using web-based data collection methods have the potential to exceed follow-up rates using traditional in-person interviews. If this population of persons experiencing street homelessness can be successful with this method of data collection, perhaps other disenfranchised, difficult-to-track, or difficult-to-reach populations could be followed using web-based data collection methods. Local governments are striving to decrease the "digital divide," providing free or greatly discounted wi-fi connectivity as well as mobile computer lab access to low-income geographic areas. These actions, in combination with increased smart phone ownership, may permit vulnerable populations to connect and communicate with investigators.

Implementing the Chronic Care Model for Opioid and Alcohol Use Disorders in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Effective treatments for opioid and alcohol use disorders (OAUD) are available, yet only a small percentage of those needing treatment receive it.

OBJECTIVES

This paper describes a collaborative planning and development process used by researchers and community providers to apply the chronic care model to the delivery of treatment for OAUD in primary care. The goal was to develop and implement an intervention that would support the delivery of brief psychotherapy and medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

METHODS

We used focus groups and interviews to identify barriers and facilitators, and organized the results using the chronic care model. We then identified implementation strategies, the intended organizational changes, and the materials necessary to carry out each strategy, and pilot-tested the process.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We describe the methods and outcomes of the collaborative planning and development process, and discuss implications of the work for the integration of substance use treatment with primary care.

Substance use among persons with homeless experience in primary care

BACKGROUND

Community survey data suggest high prevalence of substance use disorders among currently homeless individuals. There are less data regarding illicit drug and alcohol use problems of homeless-experienced persons engaged in primary care. They may have less severe use and require different care responses from primary care teams.

METHODS

The authors surveyed currently and formerly homeless, i.e., homeless-experienced, persons engaged in primary care at five federally funded programs in the United States, administering the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The ASSIST definitions of lower, moderate, and high risk were used to assess a spectrum of lifetime and recent substance use, from any use to likely dependence, and to identify sociodemographic and health status characteristics associated with severity of use.

RESULTS

Almost one half of the sample (N = 601) had recently (within the past three months) used alcohol, and one third had recently used an illicit drug. The most commonly used illicit drugs in the past three months were cannabis (19%), cocaine (16%), and opioids (7.5%). Over one half (59%) of respondents had ASSIST-defined moderate- or high-risk substance use. A significant proportion (31%) of those identified as at moderate risk had no recent substance use, but did report past problematic use. Ten percent of the lower-risk group had past problematic use of alcohol. Severity of use was associated with worse health status, but not with housing status or type of homelessness experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

Less severe (moderate-risk) use and past problematic use, potentially indicative of remitted substance use disorders, were more common than high-risk use in this primary care, homeless-experienced sample. These findings highlight the urgency of identifying effective ways to reduce risky substance use and prevent relapse in homeless-experienced persons.