Independent Supported Housing for Non-homeless People With Serious Mental Illness: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

What are important ingredients for Intensive Home Support for people with severe mental illness according to experts? A concept mapping approach

BACKGROUND

Deinstitutionalization in mental health care has been an ongoing process for decades. More and more people with severe mental illness (SMI), who previously lived in residential supported housing settings and were formerly homeless, are now living independently in the community but need intensive support to enable independent living. The support provided by regular outpatient teams is inadequate for this target group. This study explored the ingredients for an alternative form of outpatient support: intensive home support (IHS).

METHODS

Concept mapping was used, following five steps: (1) brainstorming, (2) sorting, (3) rating, (4) statistical analysis & visual representation, and (5) interpretation. Purposive sampling was used to represent several perspectives, including researchers, professionals, peer workers, and policy makers.

RESULTS

Experts (n = 17) participated in the brainstorming step and the sorting and rating steps (n = 14). The 84 generated statements were grouped into 10 clusters:. (1) housing rights; (2) informal collaboration; (3) reciprocity in the community; (4) normalization and citizenship; (5) recovery; (6) sustainable funding; (7) equivalence; (8) flexible, proactive 24/7 support; (9) public health and positive health; and (10) integrated cooperation in support at home.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the diversity of the ingredients contained in the clusters, it seems that IHS should be designed according to a holistic approach in collaboration with several sectors. Additionally, IHS is not only the responsibility of care organizations but also the responsibility of national and local governments. Further research about collaboration and integrated care is needed to determine how to implement all of the ingredients in practice.

Independent Supported Housing Versus Institutionalised Residential Rehabilitation for Individuals with Severe Mental Illness: A Survey of Attitudes and Working Conditions Among Mental Healthcare Professionals

Despite widespread support for Independent Supported Housing (ISH) interventions, psychiatric housing rehabilitation still commonly takes place in residential care facilities (RCFs). This study compares preferences, attitudes and working conditions of mental healthcare professionals (MHCPs) in ISH and RCFs using an online survey. The survey included setting preferences, stress and strain at work, recovery attitudes, stigmatisation, and factors experienced as particularly important or obstructive in housing rehabilitation. Data were analysed using quantitative and qualitative approaches. Of the 112 participating MHCPs, 37% worked in ISH and 63% in RCFs. Professionals' education, work-related demands and influence at work were higher in ISH, stigmatising attitudes were higher in RCFs. MHCPs in both settings endorsed ISH. The support process was seen as particularly important whereas stigmatisation, regulatory and political requirements were seen as obstructive for successful housing rehabilitation. Results indicate that social inclusion of individuals with severe mental illness is seldom feasible without professional support.

Independent Supported Housing for non-homeless individuals with severe mental illness: Comparison of two effectiveness studies using a randomised controlled and an observational study design

BACKGROUND

No randomised controlled study (RCT) on the effectiveness of Independent Supported Housing (ISH) vs. housing as usual (HAU) settings for non-homeless individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) has been conducted to date because of limited feasibility. Alternative designs, such as observational studies, might be suitable for providing adequate evidence if well conducted. To test this hypothesis, this article reports on a prospective, direct comparison of the designs of two parallel studies in this field.

METHODS

A two-centre, parallel-group non-inferiority effectiveness study was conducted at two locations in Switzerland using identical instruments and clinical hypotheses. One centre applied an RCT design and the other an observational study (OS) design with propensity score methods (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03815604). The comparability of the two study centres was investigated in terms of participants, procedures, and outcomes. The primary outcome was social inclusion and the secondary outcomes were quality of life and psychiatric symptoms.

RESULTS

The study included 141 participants (RCT: n = 58; OS: n = 83). Within one year, 27% study dropouts occurred (RCT: 34%; OS: 22%). A similar balance of sample characteristics was achieved in the RCT and the OS using propensity score methods (inverse probability of treatment weighting). After one year, ISH was non-inferior to the control condition regarding social inclusion (mean differences [95% CI]) in the RCT (6.28 [-0.08 to 13.35]) and the OS (2.24 [-2.30 to 6.77]) and showed no significant differences in quality of life (RCT: 0.12 [-0.52 to 0.75]; OS: 0.16 [-0.26 to 0.58]) and symptoms (RCT: -0.18 [-0.75 to 0.40]; OS: 0.21 [-0.17 to 0.60]) in both study centres. However, strong and persistent preferences for ISH in the RCT control group reduced participants' willingness to participate. Because of several limitations in the RCT, the results of the RCT and the OS are not comparable.

CONCLUSION

Participants were comparable in both study sites. However, there were significant problems in conducting the RCT because of strong preferences for ISH. The OS with propensity score methods provided results of more stable groups of participants and revealed balanced samples and valid outcome analysis. Our results do not support further investment in RCTs in this field.