"The trauma machine expands faster than our services": Health risks for unhoused people in an early-stage gentrifying area.

While homelessness continues to be a prevalent problem throughout the United States, many urban neighborhoods are also concurrently experiencing an influx of affluent neighbors through gentrification, exposing the stark inequalities in housing access nationwide. Gentrification-induced changes in neighborhood dynamics have also been shown to affect the health of low-income and non-white groups, with high risks of trauma from displacement and exposure to violent crime and criminalization. This study addresses risk factors for health among the most vulnerable, unhoused individuals, and provides a detailed case study on the potential exposures to emotional and physical traumas for unhoused people in early-stage gentrifying areas. By conducting 17 semi-structured interviews with people who work with the unhoused community - health providers, nonprofit employees, neighborhood representatives, and developers - in Kensington, Philadelphia, we analyze how early-stage gentrification impacts the risks for negative health consequences among unhoused groups. Results show that gentrification impacts the health of unhoused people in four main areas that, all together, create what we identify as a "trauma machine" - that is compounding traumas for unhoused residents by 1) reducing and compromising spaces of safety from violent crime, 2) decreasing public services, 3) threatening the quality of healthcare, and 4) increasing the likelihood of displacement and associated trauma.

A randomised controlled 8-week crossover clinical evaluation of the 3M Coban 2 Layer Compression System versus Profore to evaluate the product performance in patients with venous leg ulcers.

This study compared a two-layer (Coban 2 Layer) and a four-layer (Profore) compression bandage system in venous leg ulcer patients. Participants (n = 81) were enrolled into an 8-week, randomised, open-label, ten-centre, crossover clinical trial. The primary endpoint was bandage slippage measured at each dressing change. Secondary endpoints included wound healing, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient preference. Mean slippage estimated from a mixed analysis of variance model (697 visits) was 2.48 cm for the two-layer system and 4.17 cm for the four-layer system (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in percent of wounds that healed (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.30), in wound area reduction (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P = 0.88) or in linear healing rate (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P = 0.94). The HRQoL Physical Symptoms and Daily Living scores were significantly higher with the two-layer system (pooled two-sample t-test, P < 0.05). Patients had a strong preference for the two-layer system (72%) than the four-layer system (22%), with 6% having no preference. In conclusion, the two-layer system exhibited significantly less bandage slippage than the four-layer system. While less bandage slippage did not appear to impact wound healing, there was indication that it may have influenced patient preference in favour of the two-layer system and potentially impacted patients' HRQoL.