Bringing Lived Experience to Research on Health and Homelessness: Perspectives of Researchers and Lived Experience Partners.

Improving health and healthcare for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) has become a national research priority. It is critical for research related to homelessness to be guided by input from PEH themselves. We are a group of researchers and individuals who have personally experienced homelessness collaborating on a study focused on homelessness and housing. In this Fresh Focus, we describe our partnership, lessons learned from our work together, what we have gained from our collaboration, and considerations for future homelessness research-lived experience partnerships.

Investigating the Comparative Effectiveness of Place-Based and Scatter-Site Permanent Supportive Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocols for a Mixed Methods, Prospective Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is an evidence-based practice to address homelessness that is implemented using 2 distinct approaches. The first approach is place-based PSH (PB-PSH), or single-site housing placement, in which an entire building with on-site services is designated for people experiencing homelessness. The second approach is scatter-site PSH (SS-PSH), which uses apartments rented from a private landlord while providing mobile case management services. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocols for a mixed methods comparative effectiveness study of 2 distinct approaches to implementing PSH and the patient-centered quality of life, health care use, and health behaviors that reduce COVID-19 risk. METHODS: People experiencing homelessness who are placed in either PB-PSH or SS-PSH completed 6 monthly surveys after move-in using smartphones provided by the study team. A subsample of participants completed 3 qualitative interviews at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months that included photo elicitation interviewing. Two stakeholder advisory groups, including one featuring people with lived experience of homelessness, helped guide study decisions and interpretations of findings. RESULTS: Study recruitment was supposed to occur over 6 months starting in January 2021 but was extended due to delays in recruitment. These delays included COVID-19 delays (eg, recruitment sites shut down due to outbreaks and study team members testing positive) and delays that may have been indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including high staff turnover or recruitment sites having competing priorities. In end-July 2022, in total, 641 people experiencing homelessness had been referred from 26 partnering recruitment sites, and 563 people experiencing homelessness had enrolled in the study and completed a baseline demographic survey. Of the 563 participants in the study, 452 had recently moved into the housing when they enrolled, with 272 placed in PB-PSH and 180 placed in SS-PSH. Another 111 participants were approved but are still waiting for housing placement. To date, 49 participants have been lost to follow-up, and 12% of phones (70 of the initial 563 distributed) were reported lost by participants. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment during the pandemic, while successful, was challenging given that in-person contact was not permitted at times either by program sites or the research institutions during COVID-19 surges and high community transmission, which particularly affected homelessness programs in Los Angeles County. To overcome recruitment challenges, flexible strategies were used, which included extending the recruitment period and the distribution of cell phones with paid data plans. Given current recruitment numbers and retention rates that are over 90%, the study will be able to address a gap in the literature by considering the comparative effectiveness of PB-PSH versus SS-PSH on patient-centered quality of life, health care use, and health behaviors that reduce COVID-19 risk, which can influence future public health approaches to homelessness and infectious diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04769349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04769349. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46782.

Strategies for Sustaining Fidelity: A Multi-state Qualitative Analysis in Housing First Programs.

Little is known about long-term fidelity of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) under changing conditions. This study examines how staff at 'mature' (eight or more years in operation) Housing First (HF) programs strategize to sustain EBI fit in different geographic areas in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeastern United States. Six focus groups (FGs) at three purposively selected HF programs were conducted with separate FGs for case managers and supervisors at each site. FG discussions elicited participants' service approaches and strategies in addressing fidelity amidst ongoing changes affecting each program. Thematic content analysis of FG transcripts was conducted using the five HF fidelity domains (housing choice/structure, separation of housing and services, service philosophy, service array, and program structure) as a priori themes with inductive content analyses conducted on data in each theme. Strategies for rigor were employed. Case managers (N = 17) and supervisors (N = 16) were predominantly white (76%) and female (60%). Across the themes, challenges included lack of affordable housing and choice, funders' restrictions and practice 'drift.' Strategies included community engagement and hiring, strong leadership and 'bending the rules.' There were no differences across sites. Later-stage implementation challenges show the need for continued vigilance in fidelity to EBIs. Among the strategies used to address fidelity in this study, the pursuit of pro-active community engagement to attract knowledgeable staff as well as increase local buy-in was considered pivotal at all three sites. These findings underscore the need to attend to the external setting as well as to internal program operations.

Employment experiences of formerly homeless adults with serious mental illness in Housing First versus treatment first supportive housing programs.

OBJECTIVE: This paper examines how formerly homeless adults with serious mental illness living in Housing First (HF) and "treatment first" (TF) supportive housing programs experience employment. Research questions include: How do these individuals experience employment in the context of their mental health recovery? What do they perceive as the benefits of and obstacles to attaining employment? Are there programmatic differences in their employment experiences? METHOD: Case study analyses of data from a federally funded qualitative study were conducted of 40 individuals purposively sampled from HF and TF programs. Data were independently analyzed and consensually discussed to develop cross-case themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: (a) the meaning of work, (b) working within the system, and (c) balancing treatment requirements and work. While none of the study participants had full-time jobs, more HF program clients had part-time employment than their TF counterparts. Of the 12 employed participants, all but 2 worked within their respective programs. Participants in both groups described similar benefits of obtaining employment, but TF program requirements inhibited job-seeking. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings provide insight into the challenges of obtaining employment for formerly homeless individuals with serious mental illness residing in supportive housing. Despite the motivation to work, individual, structural, and organizational factors impeded employment. To address this problem, factors at each of these levels will need to be considered. Interventions such as supported employment offer promise to supportive housing programs committed to employment as a contributor to recovery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Benefit requirements for substance use disorder treatment in state health insurance exchanges.

BACKGROUND: Established in 2014, state health insurance exchanges have greatly expanded substance use disorder (SUD) treatment coverage in the United States as qualified health plans (QHPs) within the exchanges are required to conform to parity provisions laid out by the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Coverage improvements, however, have not been even as states have wide discretion over how they meet these regulations. OBJECTIVE: How states regulate SUD treatment benefits offered by QHPs has implications for the accessibility and quality of care. In this study, we assessed the extent to which state insurance departments regulate the types of SUD services and medications plans must provide, as well as their use of utilization controls. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally-representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment. Data were obtained from state Departments of Insurance via a 15-minute internet-based survey. RESULTS: States varied widely in regulations on QHPs' administration of SUD treatment benefits. Some states required plans to cover all 11 SUD treatment services and medications we assessed in the study, whereas others did not require plans to cover anything at all. Nearly all states allowed the plans to employ utilization controls, but reported little guidance regarding how they should be used. CONCLUSION: Although some states have taken full advantage of the health insurance exchanges to increase access to SUD treatment, others seem to have done the bare minimum required by the ACA. By not requiring coverage for the entire SUD continuum of care, states are hindering client access to appropriate types of care necessary for recovery.

Rebuilding lives and identities: The role of place in recovery among persons with complex needs.

Photo-elicitation interviews (PEIs) were conducted to explore the role of place in recovery - specifically, narrative identity reconstruction - among persons with complex needs. PEIs with 17 formerly homeless adults with co-occurring disorders in New York City produced 243 photos. Content analysis of photos revealed three categories - apartment, neighborhood and people. Two narrative themes - having my own and civic identity - were mapped onto the apartment and neighborhood categories, respectively. Three additional cross-categorical narrative themes were identified: (re)negotiating relationships and boundaries, moving beyond old identities and future possibilities. Housing was central across themes. Understanding of recovery is enhanced when viewed through participant-controlled visual methods.