Effect of a Housing Intervention on Selected Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Homeless Adults With Mental Illness: 24-Month Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

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.

Types and Effectiveness of Community-Based Cardiovascular Disease Preventive Interventions in Reducing Alcohol Consumption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) poses a global health challenge, with modifiable risk factors, notably alcohol consumption, impacting its onset and progression. This review synthesizes evidence on the types and effectiveness of community-based interventions (CBIs) aimed at reducing alcohol consumption for CVD prevention. Electronic databases were systematically searched until October 31, 2019, with updates until February 28, 2023. Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we narratively synthesized the effectiveness of CBIs, adhering to the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines for transparent reporting. For selected homogenous studies, a random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to estimate the effects of CBIs on alcohol consumption. Twenty-two eligible studies were included, with 16 demonstrating that CBIs reduced alcohol consumption compared to controls. Meta-analysis findings revealed reductions in above moderate-level alcohol consumption (pooled odds ratio (OR)=0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37, 0.68), number of alcohol drinks per week (standardized mean difference=-0.08, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.03), and increased odds of low-risk drinking (pooled OR=1.99, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.81) compared to the control groups. Multi-component interventions (particularly those combining health education, awareness, and promotion activities) and those interventions with a duration of 12 months or more were notably effective. The beneficial effects of CBIs focusing on achieving a reduction in alcohol consumption showed promising outcomes. Implementing such interventions, especially multicomponent interventions, could play a significant role in mitigating the increasing burden of CVDs. Future studies should also consider employing standardized and validated tools to measure alcohol consumption outcomes to enhance the consistency and comparability of findings.

Temporary Financial Assistance for Housing Expenditures and Mortality and Suicide Outcomes Among US Veterans

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear whether interventions designed to increase housing stability can also lead to improved health outcomes such as reduced risk of death and suicide morbidity. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential impact of temporary financial assistance (TFA) for housing-related expenses from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on health outcomes including all-cause mortality, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective national cohort study of Veterans who entered the VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program between 10/2015 and 9/2018. We assessed the association between TFA and health outcomes using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression approach with inverse probability of treatment weighting. We conducted these analyses on our overall cohort as well as separately for those in the rapid re-housing (RRH) and homelessness prevention (HP) components of SSVF. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideation at 365 and 730 days following enrollment in SSVF.

RESULTS

Our analysis cohort consisted of 41,969 unique Veterans with a mean (SD) duration of 87.6 (57.4) days in the SSVF program. At 365 days following SSVF enrollment, TFA was associated with a decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.696, p < 0.001) and suicidal ideation (HR: 0.788, p < 0.001). We found similar results at 730 days (HR: 0.811, p = 0.007 for all-cause mortality and HR: 0.881, p = 0.037 for suicidal ideation). These results were driven primarily by individuals enrolled in the RRH component of SSVF. We found no association between TFA and suicide attempts.

CONCLUSION

We find that providing housing-related financial assistance to individuals facing housing instability is associated with improvements in important health outcomes such as all-cause mortality and suicidal ideation. If causal, these results suggest that programs to provide housing assistance have positive spillover effects into other important aspects of individuals' lives.

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.

Effect of a Housing Intervention on Selected Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Homeless Adults With Mental Illness: 24-Month Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality among people experiencing homelessness. This study investigated whether housing intervention affects cardiovascular disease risk factors among homeless adults with mental illnesses over a 24-month period. Methods and Results We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a Housing First intervention that provided community-based scattered-site housing and support services. Five hundred seventy-five participants were randomized to the intervention (n=301) or treatment as usual (TAU) (n=274). Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using generalized estimating equations. There were no differences in change over 24 months between the 2 groups for blood pressure, tobacco, and cocaine/crack use. However, the intervention had an impact on reducing the number of days of alcohol intoxication by 1.58 days compared with TAU (95% CI, -2.88 to -0.27, P=0.0018). Over the 24-month period, both the intervention and TAU groups had significant reductions in tobacco and cocaine use. Conclusions The intervention, compared with TAU, did not result in greater improvements in many of the selected cardiovascular risk factors. Since the study took place in a service-rich city with a range of pre-existing supportive services and universal health insurance, the high level of usual services available to the TAU group may have contributed to reductions in their cardiovascular disease risk factors. Further research is needed to develop interventions to reduce risk factors of cardiovascular disease among people experiencing homelessness and mental illness beyond existing treatments. REGISTRATION www.isrctn.comURL: www.isrctn.com. Unique Identifier: ISRCTN42520374.