Comparison of Housing First and Traditional Homeless Service Users in Eight European Countries: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Multi-Site Study.
Housing First
capabilities
homeless services
recovery
Journal
JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 02 2020
05 02 2020
Historique:
received:
03
05
2019
accepted:
22
10
2019
revised:
16
10
2019
entrez:
6
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Homeless services expend considerable resources to provide for service users' most basic needs, such as food and shelter, but their track record for ending homelessness is disappointing. An alternative model, Housing First, reversed the order of services so that homeless individuals are offered immediate access to independent housing, with wraparound supports but no treatment or abstinence requirements. Although the evidence base for Housing First's effectiveness in ending homelessness is robust, less is known about its effectiveness in promoting recovery. The objective of this research is to compare rehabilitation- and recovery-related outcomes of homeless services users who are engaged in either Housing First or traditional staircase services in eight European countries: France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. A mixed methods, multi-site investigation of Housing First and traditional services will compare quantitative outcomes at two time points. Key rehabilitation outcomes include stable housing and psychiatric symptoms. Key growth outcomes include community integration and acquired capabilities. Semistructured interviews will be used to examine service users' experiences of environmental constraints and affordances on acquired capabilities to identify features of homeless services that enhance service users' capabilities sets. Multi-level modelling will be used to test for group differences-Housing First versus traditional services-on key outcome variables. Thematic analysis will be used to understand the ways in which service users make sense of internal and external affordances and constraints on capabilities. The study is registered with the European Commission (registration number: H2020-SC6-REVINEQUAL-2016/ GA726997). Two press releases, a research report to the funding body, two peer-reviewed articles, and an e-book chapter are planned for dissemination of the final results. The project was funded from September 2016 through September 2019. Expected results will be disseminated in 2019 and 2020. We will use the findings from this research to formulate recommendations for European social policy on the configuration of homeless services and the scaling up and scaling out of Housing First programs. From our findings, we will draw conclusions about the setting features that promote individuals' exits from homelessness, rehabilitation, and recovery. RR1-10.2196/14584.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Homeless services expend considerable resources to provide for service users' most basic needs, such as food and shelter, but their track record for ending homelessness is disappointing. An alternative model, Housing First, reversed the order of services so that homeless individuals are offered immediate access to independent housing, with wraparound supports but no treatment or abstinence requirements. Although the evidence base for Housing First's effectiveness in ending homelessness is robust, less is known about its effectiveness in promoting recovery.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research is to compare rehabilitation- and recovery-related outcomes of homeless services users who are engaged in either Housing First or traditional staircase services in eight European countries: France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
METHODS
A mixed methods, multi-site investigation of Housing First and traditional services will compare quantitative outcomes at two time points. Key rehabilitation outcomes include stable housing and psychiatric symptoms. Key growth outcomes include community integration and acquired capabilities. Semistructured interviews will be used to examine service users' experiences of environmental constraints and affordances on acquired capabilities to identify features of homeless services that enhance service users' capabilities sets. Multi-level modelling will be used to test for group differences-Housing First versus traditional services-on key outcome variables. Thematic analysis will be used to understand the ways in which service users make sense of internal and external affordances and constraints on capabilities.
RESULTS
The study is registered with the European Commission (registration number: H2020-SC6-REVINEQUAL-2016/ GA726997). Two press releases, a research report to the funding body, two peer-reviewed articles, and an e-book chapter are planned for dissemination of the final results. The project was funded from September 2016 through September 2019. Expected results will be disseminated in 2019 and 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
We will use the findings from this research to formulate recommendations for European social policy on the configuration of homeless services and the scaling up and scaling out of Housing First programs. From our findings, we will draw conclusions about the setting features that promote individuals' exits from homelessness, rehabilitation, and recovery.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR1-10.2196/14584.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32022696
pii: v9i2e14584
doi: 10.2196/14584
pmc: PMC7055843
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e14584Informations de copyright
©Ronni Michelle Greenwood, Rachel M Manning, Branagh R O'Shaughnessy, Oisin Cross, Maria J Vargas-Moniz, Pascal Auquier, Massimo Santinello, Judith R Wolf, Anna Bokszczanin, Roberto Bernad, Håkan Källmén, Frederik Spinnewijn, José Ornelas, HOME_EU Consortium. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 05.02.2020.
Références
Med Anthropol Q. 2000 Sep;14(3):328-45
pubmed: 11036582
Psychiatry. 2007 Spring;70(1):1-11
pubmed: 17492907
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2008 Jul;78(3):333-9
pubmed: 19123752
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Jun;65(3):476-84
pubmed: 9170771
BMJ Open. 2011 Nov 14;1(2):e000323
pubmed: 22102645
Am J Community Psychol. 2018 Mar;61(1-2):32-46
pubmed: 29297593
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007 Mar;34(2):89-100
pubmed: 16865313
Can J Commun Ment Health. 1996 Spring;15(1):5-20
pubmed: 10163559
Community Ment Health J. 2011 Apr;47(2):227-32
pubmed: 20063061
Can J Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;60(11):467-74
pubmed: 26720504
Am J Community Psychol. 2015 Jun;55(3-4):243-52
pubmed: 25822113
Health Soc Care Community. 2014 Mar;22(2):134-43
pubmed: 24112117
Milbank Q. 1994;72(1):123-48
pubmed: 8164605
J Prim Prev. 2007 Jul;28(3-4):265-79
pubmed: 17592778
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):77-85
pubmed: 20521164
Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Sep;52(9):1230-6
pubmed: 11533398
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1992 Oct;62(4):525-34
pubmed: 1443061
Indian J Med Res. 2007 Oct;126(4):262-72
pubmed: 18032801
Trials. 2013 Sep 24;14:309
pubmed: 24063556
Am J Community Psychol. 2005 Dec;36(3-4):223-38
pubmed: 16389497
J Health Soc Behav. 1978 Mar;19(1):2-21
pubmed: 649936
Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Dec 1;67(12):1385
pubmed: 27903173
Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2019 Jun;42(2):147-157
pubmed: 30730171
Community Ment Health J. 1995 Apr;31(2):139-52
pubmed: 7789122
JAMA. 2015 Mar 3;313(9):905-15
pubmed: 25734732
Psychol Addict Behav. 2005 Mar;19(1):71-8
pubmed: 15783280
Eur Addict Res. 2005;11(1):22-31
pubmed: 15608468
Psychiatr Serv. 2000 Sep;51(9):1148-52
pubmed: 10970918
Qual Life Res. 2006 Mar;15(2):191-201
pubmed: 16468076
Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Mar;41(1-2):4-21
pubmed: 18175215
Am J Public Health. 2004 Apr;94(4):651-6
pubmed: 15054020
Lancet. 2014 Oct 25;384(9953):1529-40
pubmed: 25390578