Using mHealth to Increase Treatment Utilization Among Recently Incarcerated Homeless Adults (Link2Care): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Capturing the Dynamics of Homelessness Through Ethnography and Mobile Technology: Protocol for the Development and Testing of a Smartphone Technology-Supported Intervention

BACKGROUND

US military veterans who have experienced homelessness often have high rates of housing transition. Disruptions caused by these transitions likely exacerbate this population's health problems and interfere with access to care and treatment engagement. Individuals experiencing homelessness increasingly use smartphones, contributing to improved access to medical and social services. Few studies have used smartphones as a data collection tool to systematically collect information about the daily life events that precede and contribute to housing transitions, in-the-moment emotions, behaviors, geographic movements, and perceived social support.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to develop and test a smartphone app to collect longitudinal data from veterans experiencing homelessness (VEH) and to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of using the app in a population that is unstably housed or homeless.

METHODS

This study's design had 3 phases. Phase 1 used ethnographic methods to capture detailed data on day-to-day lived experiences of up to 30 VEH on topics such as housing stability, health, and health behaviors. Phase 2 involved focus groups and usability testing to develop and refine mobile phone data collection methods. Phase 3 piloted the smartphone mobile data collection with 30 VEH. We included mobile ethnography, real-time surveys through an app, and the collection of GPS data in phase 3.

RESULTS

The project was launched in June 2020, and at this point, some data collection and analysis for phases 1 and 2 are complete. This project is currently in progress.

CONCLUSIONS

This multiphase study will provide rich data on the context and immediate events leading to housing transitions among VEH. This study will ensure the development of a smartphone app that will match the actual needs of VEH by involving them in the design process from the beginning. Finally, this study will offer important insights into how best to develop a smartphone app that can help intervene among VEH to reduce housing transitions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/53022.

Study protocol paper for the multi-site feasibility evaluation of mobile and technology-assisted aftercare services for crisis stabilization units

BACKGROUND

Law enforcement frequently responds to substance abuse and mental health crises. Crisis stabilization units (CSUs) operate as a public-receiving facility to provide short-term stabilization services for individuals experiencing these crises and offer law enforcement an important alternative to arrest. However, there is limited understanding about how and when law enforcement decides to use CSUs. There is also the challenge of retaining individuals in treatment after CSU stabilization to prevent future crises and persistent engagement with police. This study will respond to these gaps by exploring CSU procedures and examining the feasibility and acceptability of a technology-assisted mobile aftercare intervention designed for individuals brought to a CSU by law enforcement.

METHODS

This study will consist of three aims. Aim 1 will include qualitative interviews with law enforcement and CSU-affiliated mental health staff (n=80) regarding CSU utilization and collaboration logistics between the groups. Findings from Aim 1 will be synthesized for the development of an implementation guide of our intervention, mobile, and technology-assisted aftercare, designed for individuals brought to a CSU by law enforcement, during Aim 2. During Aim 2, intervention services will be pilot-tested for 6 months through a small sample (n=24), randomized control trial (RCT). Control participants will receive standard services available for individuals discharging from a CSU. Treatment participants will receive the mobile aftercare intervention. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-recruitment for all study participants. Aims 1 and 2 will inform the design of a multi-site RCT to compare CSUs with and without mobile and technology-assisted aftercare (Aim 3).

DISCUSSION

The study will offer decision making and procedural insight into law enforcement use of CSUs as an alternative to jail and provide opportunities to inform that process. This research will provide outcome trends for those who go through standard CSU services compared to those who receive mobile and technology-assisted aftercare services. The current study will inform a larger RCT efficacy study of CSUs with and without technology-assisted aftercare services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (reference #NCT04899934) on May 25, 2021.

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.

The Prevalence and Perceived Utility of Mobile Health Technology Among Recently Incarcerated Homeless Adults

Mobile technologies can deliver physical and mental health services for recently incarcerated homeless adults (RIHAs). The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and perceived utility of mobile technology to support health behavior change among RIHAs. Participants (n = 324) from an ongoing clinical trial at a homeless shelter in Texas were included in the current descriptive cross-sectional analyses. Over one fourth (28.4%) of participants had an active cell phone. Nearly 90 percent (88.6%) of participants reported at least weekly use of the internet, 77 percent used email (77.2%), and more than half used Facebook (55.2%). Although most participants (82.8%) believed that smartphone applications (apps) could help change their behavior, only a quarter (25.1%) had used an app for this purpose. These findings highlight the potential for smartphone-based intervention technologies, and future studies should examine whether smartphone apps that address mental health and health behaviors are feasible among RIHAs.

A Smartphone-Based Intervention for Anxiety and Depression in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Adults (EASE): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Clear health disparities have emerged in the rates of COVID-19 exposure, hospitalization, and death among Black, Hispanic, and American Indian (BHAI) individuals, relative to non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals. BHAI populations have been disproportionately affected by lower behavioral health access and heightened negative mental health outcomes during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

This project directly addresses health disparities in access to behavioral health care during the COVID-19 pandemic among BHAI populations via an adaptation of the established, initially validated, low-cost, mobile app Easing Anxiety Sensitivity for Everyone (EASE) among individuals with symptoms of elevated anxiety or depression or both.

METHODS

The EASE trial is a 2-arm, prospective, randomized, blinded-assessor study with intention-to-treat analysis. Participants (N=800; n=200, 25%, Black; n=200, 25%, Hispanic; n=200, 25%, American Indian; and n=200, 25%, NHW) are randomized to receive either EASE or an active comparison condition for anxiety and depression. Participants compete an online prescreener, an enrollment call to provide informed consent, a baseline survey, a 6-month intervention period, and 3- and 6-month postbaseline assessments. Select participants also complete a 3- and 6-month postbaseline qualitative interview via phone or an online platform (eg, Zoom). Participants complete 2 scheduled daily ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) during the 6-month study period. These twice-daily EMAs guide a just-in-time approach to immediate, personalized behavioral health care.

RESULTS

Outcomes include reductions in anxiety and depressive symptoms and functional impairment at 3 and 6 months postrandomization. We also will examine putative mechanisms (eg, anxiety sensitivity [AS] and COVID-19-specific stress and fear) of the intervention effects. Further, as treatment effects may differ across sociocultural factors, perceived discrimination, social support, and socioeconomic status (SES) will be evaluated as potential moderators of treatment effects on the primary outcomes. Process evaluation using data collected during the study, as well as individual interviews with participants, will complement quantitative data.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this efficacy trial will determine whether EASE successfully improves symptoms of anxiety and depression and whether these improvements outperform an active comparison control app. If successful, findings from this study have the potential to decrease anxiety and depression symptoms among vulnerable populations determined to be most at risk of exacerbated, long-lasting negative health sequelae. Data from this study may be used to support an implementation and dissemination trial of EASE within real-world behavioral health and social service settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05074693; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074693.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/40713.

A roadmap for cardiovascular care after release from incarceration: uses of a smartphone application

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors disproportionately affect people returning from incarceration. These individuals face multiple barriers to obtaining care, which can impact CVD and risk factor management and may be mitigated through use of a smartphone application (app). Therefore, we explored the CVD-related needs of people released from incarceration and which app features would support these needs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2019, we collected qualitative data through 7 focus groups with 76 returning citizens and 19 key informants through interviews and small group discussions in Baltimore, Maryland. Verbal data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive thematic coding with N-Vivo qualitative software.

RESULTS

Returning citizens face multiple barriers when trying to engage in care and services related to cardiovascular health, including around medications and health insurance. Some major challenges were identifying trusted social services and making cardiovascular health a priority. Findings suggested that CVD risk factors could be more effectively addressed in combination with attending to other pressing needs related to employment, housing, behavioral health, and building trust. Participants suggested that a smartphone app would be most useful if it broadly addressed these issues by linking returning citizens to social services, including recommendations from peers, and facilitating access to healthcare.

DISCUSSION

Returning citizens need broad support for societal reintegration. Addressing social issues would allow them to focus on cardiovascular health.

CONCLUSION

Given the challenges experienced after release from incarceration, an app focused on social and health-access issues may help returning citizens meet their CVD needs.

Differences between homeless and non-homeless people in a matched sample referred for mental health reasons in police custody

INTRODUCTION

Homelessness has risen across high-income countries in the last decade, and in the United Kingdom, there has been a drastic increase in people living on the streets. Due to these increases, policy responses from public services are required to address the needs of this group. The risk factors for homelessness and conditions that this group live in mean they are at elevated risk of both mental health problems and contact with the criminal justice system. Despite this, there is little previous research on the homeless in police custody.

METHODS

Our study used a matched sample of homeless (n = 77) and non-homeless (n = 77) individuals to examine whether there were different needs across this group and whether the responses of a criminal justice mental health service differ for this group. This study is a secondary data analysis of a more extensive study.

RESULTS

Homeless and non-homeless detainees referred to the mental health service were broadly similar. However, differences in some variables show that homeless detainees had higher rates and frequency of substance misuse as well as some suggestion of more acute immediate need. Onward referrals were lower for homeless people, and it is not clear why this is the case. In addition, for those referred contact with services over time was reduced compared to the non-homeless group.

DISCUSSION

Our findings indicate that mental health services in police custody may need adaptations to ensure homeless individuals' higher level of need is addressed and that they receive appropriate care both during and after detention. Further quantitative and qualitative research is needed to confirm why responses differ and to assess what can be done to address this issue.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Developing a text messaging-based smoking cessation intervention for young smokers experiencing homelessness

Introduction

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among young people experiencing homelessness, and many of these smokers are motivated to quit. However, there is a lack of readily available cessation services for this population, which is highly mobile and can be challenging to engage in services.

Aims

We describe the development of a smoking cessation text messaging intervention (TMI) for homeless youth who are interested in quitting smoking.

Methods

Participants were 18–25 years old and recruited from drop-in centers serving homeless youth. Three focus groups (N = 18) were conducted with smokers to refine the TMI content, and a separate sample of smokers (N = 8) provided feedback on the TMI after using it for 1 week. Survey data assessed the TMI's acceptability and feasibility.

Results

Participants generally rated the TMI as helpful and relevant, and nearly all had cell phone plans that included unlimited texting and were able to view TMI content with few difficulties. Qualitative feedback on strengths/limitations of the TMI in terms of content, tone, and delivery parameters was used to finalize the TMI for a future evaluation.

Conclusions

Results suggest that a TMI is a feasible and acceptable option for young people experiencing homelessness who are interested in quitting smoking.