PROTOCOL: The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, improving mental health, and improving housing stability for adults experiencing homelessness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review is part of a broader evidence synthesis which aims to produce two systematic reviews to address a significant gap in the evidence base identified by Luchenski et al. (2018) and by (White, 2018). The first review (which is the subject of this protocol) will use meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of different psychosocial interventions in (1) reducing problematic substance use; (2) improving mental health; and (3) improving housing stability for adults experiencing homelessness. The second review (which is covered by a separate title registration and protocol) will be of the experiences of adults experiencing homelessness when accessing or using psychosocial interventions, and will be a qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic synthesis (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

PROTOCOL: The experiences of adults experiencing homelessness when accessing and using psychosocial interventions: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

The systematic review set out in this protocol is part of a broader evidence synthesis which intends to produce two systematic reviews to address a significant gap in the evidence base identified by Luchenski et al. (2018) and by White and Narayanan (2021). This review (the focus of this protocol) will be of the experiences of adults experiencing homelessness when accessing and using psychosocial interventions. This review of qualitative data will use thematic synthesis to analyse these experiences as faced by this population when accessing and using psychosocial interventions.

South African stakeholders' knowledge of community-based rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) is a complex concept and strategy that has been implemented in diverse ways globally and in South Africa. Internationally, some stakeholders have described CBR as confusing, and this may influence implementation. A southern African study reports that there is insufficient evidence of the understanding of CBR in the region to influence training, policy and practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate South African stakeholders' knowledge of CBR. METHOD: This article reports on an electronic survey that was part of a larger mixed methods study. Based on the sample of 86 respondents, descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data and thematic analysis for the qualitative data. RESULTS: The majority of respondents had had exposure to CBR, but almost a quarter had no knowledge of the CBR guidelines and matrix. The results revealed varying knowledge concerning the key concepts of CBR, its beneficiaries and its funders. Respondents identified persons with disabilities as having a central role in the implementation of CBR. Problems with the visibility of CBR programmes were noted, as well as misunderstandings by many therapists. CONCLUSION: The implementation of CBR, and its goal of ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities, is negatively affected by the confusion attached to the understanding of what CBR is. The misunderstandings about, and lack of visibility of, CBR in South Africa may hinder its growing implementation in the country in line with new government policies.