Health Impact of Street Sweeps from the Perspective of Healthcare Providers.

BACKGROUND: Homeless street sweeps are frequent operations in many cities in the USA in which government agencies move unhoused people living in public outdoor areas. Little research exists on the health impact of street sweeps operations. OBJECTIVE: This study was created at the request of community advocacy groups to investigate and document the health impacts of street sweeps from the perspective of healthcare providers. DESIGN: This is a qualitative study using data gathered from open-ended questions. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 39 healthcare providers who provided health and wellness services in San Francisco for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) between January 2018 and January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: We administered a qualitative, open-ended questionnaire to healthcare providers using Qualtrics surveying their perspectives on the health impact of street sweeps. APPROACH: We conducted qualitative thematic analysis on questionnaire results. KEY RESULTS: Street sweeps may negatively impact health through two outcomes. The first outcome is material loss, including belongings and medical items. The second outcome is instability, including geographic displacement, community fragmentation, and loss to follow-up. These outcomes may contribute to less effective management of chronic health conditions, infectious diseases, and substance use disorders, and may increase physical injuries and worsen mental health. Providers also reported that sweeps may negatively impact the healthcare system by promoting increased usage of emergency departments and inpatient hospital care. CONCLUSIONS: Sweeps may have several negative consequences for the physical and mental health of the PEH community and for the healthcare system.

Food Insecurity, Food "Deserts," and Glycemic Control in Patients With Diabetes: A Longitudinal Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Both food insecurity (limited food access owing to cost) and living in areas with low physical access to nutritious foods are public health concerns, but their relative contribution to diabetes management is poorly understood. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. A random sample of patients with diabetes in a primary care network completed food insecurity assessment in 2013. Low physical food access at the census tract level was defined as no supermarket within 1 mile in urban areas and 10 miles in rural areas. HbA1c measurements were obtained from electronic health records through November 2016. The relationship among food insecurity, low physical food access, and glycemic control (as defined by HbA1c) was analyzed using hierarchical linear mixed models. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-one participants were followed for a mean of 37 months. Twenty percent of respondents reported food insecurity, and 31% resided in an area of low physical food access. In adjusted models, food insecurity was associated with higher HbA1c (difference of 0.6% [6.6 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.4-0.8 [4.4-8.7], P < 0.0001), which did not improve over time (P = 0.50). Living in an area with low physical food access was not associated with a difference in HbA1c (difference 0.2% [2.2 mmol/mol], 95% CI -0.2 to 0.5 [-2.2 to 5.6], P = 0.33) or with change over time (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Food insecurity is associated with higher HbA1c, but living in an area with low physical food access is not. Food insecurity screening and interventions may help improve glycemic control for vulnerable patients.

Multidisciplinary coordinated care for Type 2 diabetes: A qualitative analysis of patient perspectives.

AIMS: To explore the patient perspective on coordinated multidisciplinary diabetes team care among a socioeconomically diverse group of adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Qualitative research design using 8 focus groups (n=53). We randomly sampled primary care patients with type 2 diabetes and conducted focus groups at their primary care clinic. Discussion prompts queried current perceptions of team care. Each focus group was audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by three reviewers. Coding used an iterative process. Thematic saturation was achieved. Data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants believed that coordinated multidisciplinary diabetes team care was a good approach, feeling that diabetes was too complicated for any one care team member to manage. Primary care physicians were seen as too busy to manage diabetes alone, and participants were content to be treated by other care team members, especially if there was a single point of contact and the care was coordinated. Participants suggested that an ideal multidisciplinary approach would additionally include support for exercise and managing socioeconomic challenges, components perceived to be missing from the existing approach to diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated, multidisciplinary diabetes team care is understood by and acceptable to patients with type 2 diabetes.

Material need support interventions for diabetes prevention and control: a systematic review.

Unmet material needs, such as food insecurity and housing instability, are associated with increased risk of diabetes and worse outcomes among diabetes patients. Healthcare delivery organizations are increasingly held accountable for health outcomes that may be related to these "social determinants," which are outside the scope of traditional medical intervention. This review summarizes the current literature regarding interventions that provide material support for income, food, housing, and other basic needs. In addition, we propose a conceptual model of the relationship between unmet needs and diabetes outcomes and provide recommendations for future interventional research.

Material need insecurities, control of diabetes mellitus, and use of health care resources: results of the Measuring Economic Insecurity in Diabetes study.

IMPORTANCE: Increasing access to care may be insufficient to improve the health of patients with diabetes mellitus and unmet basic needs (hereinafter referred to as material need insecurities). How specific material need insecurities relate to clinical outcomes and the use of health care resources in a setting of near-universal access to health care is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of food insecurity, cost-related medication underuse, housing instability, and energy insecurity with control of diabetes mellitus and the use of health care resources. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data were collected from June 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013, at 1 academic primary care clinic, 2 community health centers, and 1 specialty center for the treatment of diabetes mellitus in Massachusetts. A random sample of 411 patients, stratified by clinic, consisted of adults (aged ≥21 years) with diabetes mellitus (response rate, 62.3%). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was a composite indicator of poor diabetes control (hemoglobin A1c level, >9.0%; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, >100 mg/dL; or blood pressure, >140/90 mm Hg). Prespecified secondary outcomes included outpatient visits and a composite of emergency department (ED) visits and acute care hospitalizations (ED/inpatient visits). RESULTS: Overall, 19.1% of respondents reported food insecurity; 27.6%, cost-related medication underuse; 10.7%, housing instability; 14.1%, energy insecurity; and 39.1%, at least 1 material need insecurity. Poor diabetes control was observed in 46.0% of respondents. In multivariable models, food insecurity was associated with a greater odds of poor diabetes control (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.97 [95% CI, 1.58-2.47]) and increased outpatient visits (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.36]) but not increased ED/inpatient visits (IRR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.51-1.97]). Cost-related medication underuse was associated with poor diabetes control (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.35-2.70]) and increased ED/inpatient visits (IRR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.21-2.34]) but not outpatient visits (IRR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.95-1.21]). Housing instability (IRR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.14-1.51]) and energy insecurity (IRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.25]) were associated with increased outpatient visits but not with diabetes control (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.60-2.02] and OR, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.96-1.69], respectively) or with ED/inpatient visits (IRR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.81-2.73] and IRR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.80-2.13], respectively). An increasing number of insecurities was associated with poor diabetes control (OR for each additional need, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.18-1.63]) and increased use of health care resources (IRR for outpatient visits, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; IRR for ED/inpatient visits, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.99-1.51]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Material need insecurities were common among patients with diabetes mellitus and had varying but generally adverse associations with diabetes control and the use of health care resources. Material need insecurities may be important targets for improving care of diabetes mellitus.