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.

Experience delivering an integrated service model to people with criminal justice system involvement and housing insecurity

BACKGROUND

People returning to communities from prison or jail face stressors related to securing housing, including discrimination, restrictions based on prior felony convictions, and limited economic and social resources. Existing housing programs can effectively reduce housing instability but often do not fully address the needs of people involved in the criminal justice system experiencing homelessness who often have co-occurring chronic medical issues, and psychiatric and substance use disorders.

METHODS

Project CHANGE is an ongoing program to deliver person-centered, integrated care and services to individuals involved with the criminal justice system and experiencing homelessness. Applying a Screening, Brief Intervention, (Referral to) Treatment framework, a comprehensive needs assessment is followed by delivery of intensive housing and vocational case management; and psychiatric, substance use, and medical services in a single location by an interdisciplinary team. Participants are followed with study interviews for 12 months. The current analysis was designed to assess the baseline characteristics and needs of the sample population, and the intensity of contact required for integrated service delivery.

RESULTS

Between November 2019 and September 2021, 86 participants were enrolled, of whom 64% had been released from prison/jail in the past 6 months; the remainder were on parole, probation, or intensive pretrial supervision. Participants were unstably housed (64%) or residing outdoors (26.7%) or in a shelter (24.4%). Most participants had high medical need and frequent healthcare engagement through outpatient and emergency department visits. Most participants were at-risk for clinical depression, and half were diagnosed with anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, somatoform, and other non-psychotic psychiatric disorders. Over 12-month follow-up, the interdisciplinary team made over 500 contact encounters, over half of which resulted in direct services provided, including obtaining vital documents for homelessness verification, housing applications, and employment coaching.

CONCLUSION

Navigation of services can be particularly challenging for individuals experiencing criminal justice involvement, homelessness, and co-occurring medical, psychiatric, and substance use issues, which can be addressed holistically in an integrated service model. Integrated service delivery was time-, resource-, and staffing-intensive, and challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring innovative solutions to sustain participant engagement.

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.

Effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions for homeless individuals in high-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Permanent supportive housing and income assistance are valuable interventions for homeless individuals. Homelessness can reduce physical and social wellbeing, presenting public health risks for infectious diseases, disability, and death. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income interventions on the health and social wellbeing of individuals who are homeless in high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, NIHR-HTA, NHS EED, DARE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to Feb 10, 2020, for studies on permanent supportive housing and income interventions for homeless populations. We included only randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cost-effectiveness studies from high-income countries that reported at least one outcome of interest (housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, earned income, or employment). We screened studies using a standardised data collection form and pooled data from published studies. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 15 908 citations, of which 72 articles were included for analysis (15 studies on permanent supportive housing across 41 publications, ten studies on income interventions across 15 publications, and 21 publications on cost or cost-effectiveness). Permanent supportive housing interventions increased long-term (6 year) housing stability for participants with moderate support needs (one study; rate ratio [RR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01-1·26]) and high support needs (RR 1·42 [1·19-1·69]) when compared with usual care. Permanent supportive housing had no measurable effect on the severity of psychiatric symptoms (ten studies), substance use (nine studies), income (two studies), or employment outcomes (one study) when compared with usual social services. Income interventions, particularly housing subsidies with case management, showed long-term improvements in the number of days stably housed (one study; mean difference at 3 years between intervention and usual services 8·58 days; p<0·004), whereas the effects on mental health and employment outcomes were unclear.

INTERPRETATION

Permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions were effective in reducing homelessness and achieving housing stability. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of housing and income interventions on physical and mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life outcomes.

FUNDING

Inner City Health Associates.

A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of Housing First in a small Canadian City

Background

The paper presents two-year findings from a study investigating the effectiveness of Housing First (HF) with assertive community treatment (ACT) in helping individuals with serious mental illness, who are homeless or precariously housed and living in a small city, to become stably housed.

Methods

The research design was a parallel group non-blinded RCT with participants randomly assigned after the baseline interview to receive HF with ACT (N = 100) or treatment as usual (TAU; N = 101). Participants were interviewed every 3 months over 21/24 months to investigate changes on a range of housing and psychosocial outcomes. The primary outcomes were housing stability (as defined by a joint function of number of days housed and number of moves) and improvement in community functioning. Secondary predicted outcomes were improvements in self-rated physical and mental health status, substance use problems, quality of life, community integration, and recovery.

Results

An intent-to-treat analysis was conducted. Compared to TAU participants, HF participants who entered housing did so more quickly (23.30 versus 88.25 days, d = 1.02, 95% CI [0.50–1.53], p < 0.001), spent a greater proportion of time stably housed (Z = 5.30, p < 0.001, OR = 3.12, 95% CI [1.96–4.27]), and rated the quality of their housing more positively (Z = 4.59, p < 0.001, d = 0.43, 95% CI [0.25–0.62]). HF participants were also more likely to be housed continually in the final 6 months (i.e., 79.57% vs. 55.47%), χ² (2, n = 170) = 11.46, p = .003, Cramer’s V = 0.26, 95% CI [0.14–0.42]). HF participants showed greater gains in quality of life, (Z = 3.83, p < 0.001, ASMD = 0.50, 95% CI [0.24–0.75]), psychological integration (Z = 12.89, p < 0.001, pooled ASMD = 0.91, 95% CI [0.77–1.05]), and perceived recovery (Z = 2.26, p = 0.03, ASMD = 0.39, 95% CI [0.05–0.74]) than TAU participants.

Conclusions

The study indicates that HF ends homelessness significantly more rapidly than TAU for a majority of individuals with serious mental illness who have a history of homelessness and live in a small city. In addition, compared to TAU, HF produces psychosocial benefits for its recipients that include an enhanced quality of life, a greater sense of belonging in the community, and greater improvements in perceived recovery from mental illness.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomized Control Trial Number Register Identifier: ISRCTN42520374, assigned August 18, 2009.