School of Psychology and Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Jun;5(6):e342-e360. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30055-4.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Inner City Health Associates.
永久性支持性住房和收入援助对于无家可归者来说是非常有价值的干预措施。无家可归会降低身体和社会福利,给传染病、残疾和死亡带来公共卫生风险。我们进行了一项系统评价、荟萃分析和叙述性综合研究,以调查永久性支持性住房和收入干预措施对高收入国家无家可归者的健康和社会福利的有效性和成本效益。
我们从数据库建立到 2020 年 2 月 10 日,在 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Epistemonikos、NIHR-HTA、NHS EED、DARE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库中检索了关于永久性支持性住房和收入干预措施对无家可归者的研究。我们只纳入了来自高收入国家的随机对照试验、准实验研究和成本效益研究,这些研究报告了至少一个感兴趣的结局(住房稳定性、心理健康、生活质量、物质使用、住院、挣得收入或就业)。我们使用标准化数据收集表对研究进行筛选,并对已发表的研究进行数据汇总。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析和叙述性综合来综合结果。我们使用 Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation 方法评估证据的确定性。
我们的检索共确定了 15908 条引文,其中 72 篇文章被纳入分析(15 篇关于永久性支持性住房的研究,涉及 41 篇出版物;10 篇关于收入干预的研究,涉及 15 篇出版物;21 篇关于成本或成本效益的出版物)。与常规护理相比,永久性支持性住房干预措施增加了中度支持需求(一项研究;比值比 [RR]1.13 [95%CI 1.01-1.26])和高度支持需求(RR 1.42 [1.19-1.69])参与者的长期(6 年)住房稳定性。与常规社会服务相比,永久性支持性住房对精神症状严重程度(10 项研究)、物质使用(9 项研究)、收入(2 项研究)或就业结果(1 项研究)没有可衡量的影响。收入干预措施,特别是带有病例管理的住房补贴,在稳定住房天数方面显示出长期改善(一项研究;干预与常规服务之间 3 年的平均差异为 8.58 天;p<0.004),而对心理健康和就业结果的影响尚不清楚。
永久性支持性住房和收入援助干预措施在减少无家可归和实现住房稳定方面是有效的。未来的研究应关注住房和收入干预措施对身体和心理健康、物质使用和生活质量结果的长期影响。
城市内部健康协会。