ABSTRACT
Background: People experiencing homelessness have diverse patterns of healthcare use. This study examined the distribution and determinants of healthcare encounters among adults with a history of homelessness. Methods: Administrative healthcare records were linked with survey data for a general cohort of adults with a history of homelessness and a cohort of homeless adults with mental illness. Binary and count models were used to identify factors associated with hospital admissions, emergency department visits and physician visits for comparison across the 2 cohorts. Results: During the 1-year follow-up period, a higher proportion of people in the cohort with a mental illness used any inpatient (27% vs 14%), emergency (63% vs 53%), or physician services (90% vs 76%) compared to the general homeless cohort. People from racialized groups were less likely use nearly all health services, most notably physician services. Other factors, such as reporting of a regular source of care, poor perceived general health, and diagnosed chronic conditions were associated with higher use of all health services except psychiatric inpatient care. Conclusion: When implementing interventions for patients with the greatest health needs, we must consider the unique factors that contribute to higher healthcare use, as well as the barriers to healthcare access.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that around 160,000 households in Britain experience homelessness each year, although no definitive statistics exist. Between March and September 2020, as part of the initial 'Everyone In' government response to COVID-19 in England, 10,566 people were living in emergency accommodation and nearly 18,911 people had been moved into settled accommodation. However, some forms of temporary accommodation may not be suitable as shared facilities make it impossible for people to adhere to government guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: This is parallel group, pilot randomised controlled trial. The target is to recruit three local authorities, each of which will recruit 50 participants (thus a total of approximately 150 participants). Individuals are eligible if they are aged 18 and over, in a single-person homeless household, temporarily accommodated by the LA with recourse to public funds. Participants will be randomised to receive settled accommodation (intervention group) or temporary accommodation (control group). The intervention group includes settled housing such as Private Rented Sector (low and medium support), Social Housing (low and medium support), and Housing First (High support). The control group will maintain treatment as usual. The follow-up period will last 6 months. The primary outcome is to assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention, and acceptability of trial processes against progression criteria laid out in a traffic light system (green: all criteria are met, the trial should progress as designed in this pilot; amber: the majority of criteria are met and with adaptations to methods all criteria could be met; red: the minority of criteria are met and the pilot RCT should not proceed). Secondary outcomes include assessment of completeness of data collection at 3 and 6 months and percentage of participants consenting to data linkage, as well as a process evaluation and economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a fully powered effectiveness trial of models of housing to reduce risk of COVID-19 infection and homelessness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69564614 . Registered on December 16, 2020.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Pregnant and postpartum women face major psychological stressors that put them at higher risk of developing common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Yet, their limited access to and uptake of traditional mental health care is inequitable, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mobile interventions emerged as a potential solution to this discontinued healthcare access, but more knowledge is needed about their effectiveness and impact on health equity. This equity-focused systematic review examined the effectiveness and equity impact of mobile interventions targeting common mental disorders among pregnant and postpartum women. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and 3 other databases, from date of database inception and until January 2021, for experimental studies on mobile interventions targeting pregnant and postpartum women. We used pooled and narrative synthesis methods to analyze effectiveness and equity data, critically appraised the methodological rigour of included studies using Cochrane tools, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 6148 records, of which 18 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included. Mobile interventions had a clinically important impact on reducing the occurrence of depression (OR = 0.51 [95% CI 0.41 to 0.64]; absolute risk reduction RD: 7.14% [95% CI 4.92 to 9.36]; p<0.001) and preventing its severity perinatally (MD = -3.07; 95% CI -4.68 to -1.46; p<0.001). Mobile cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was effective in managing postpartum depression (MD = -6.87; 95% CI -7.92 to -5.82; p<0.001), whereas other support-based interventions had no added benefit. Results on anxiety outcomes and utilization of care were limited. Our equity-focused analyses showed that ethnicity, age, education, and being primiparous were characteristics of influence to the effectiveness of mobile interventions. CONCLUSION: As the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for virtual mental health care, mobile interventions show promise in preventing and managing common mental disorders among pregnant and postpartum women. Such interventions carry the potential to address health inequity but more rigorous research that examines patients' intersecting social identities is needed.