Background Permanent supportive housing and income assistance are valuable interventions for homeless individuals. Homelessness can reduce physical and social wellbeing, presenting public health risks for infectious diseases, disability, and death. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income interventions on the health and social wellbeing of individuals who are homeless in high-income countries.Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, NIHR-HTA, NHS EED, DARE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to Feb 10, 2020, for studies on permanent supportive housing and income interventions for homeless populations. We included only randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cost-effectiveness studies from high-income countries that reported at least one outcome of interest (housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, earned income, or employment). We screened studies using a standardised data collection form and pooled data from published studies. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. FindingsOur search identified 15 908 citations, of which 72 articles were included for analysis (15 studies on permanent supportive housing across 41 publications, ten studies on income interventions across 15 publications, and 21 publications on cost or cost-effectiveness). Permanent supportive housing interventions increased long-term (6 year) housing stability for participants with moderate support needs (one study; rate ratio [RR] 1•13 [95% CI 1•01-1•26]) and high support needs (RR 1•42 [1•19-1•69]) when compared with usual care. Permanent supportive housing had no measurable effect on the severity of psychiatric symptoms (ten studies), substance use (nine studies), income (two studies), or employment outcomes (one study) when compared with usual social services. Income interventions, particularly housing subsidies with case management, showed long-term improvements in the number of days stably housed (one study; mean difference at 3 years between intervention and usual services 8•58 days; p<0•004), whereas the effects on mental health and employment outcomes were unclear. Interpretation Permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions were effective in reducing homelessness and achieving housing stability. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of housing and income interventions on physical and mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life outcomes. Funding Inner City Health Associates.

Objective. The goal of this pilot study was to develop and field-test questions for use as a poverty case-finding tool to assist primary care providers in identifying poverty in clinical practice. Methods. 156 questionnaires were completed by a convenience sample of urban and rural primary care patients presenting to four family practices in British Columbia, Canada. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses compared questionnaire responses with low-income cut-off (LICO) levels calculated for each respondent. Results. 35% of respondents were below the “poverty line” (LICO). The question “Do you (ever) have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?” was identified as a good predictor of poverty (sensitivity 98%; specificity 60%; OR 32.3, 95% CI 5.4–191.5). Multivariate analysis identified a 3-item case-finding tool including 2 additional questions about food and housing security (sensitivity 64.3%; specificity 94.4%; OR 30.2, 95% CI 10.3–88.1). 85% of below-LICO respondents felt that poverty screening was important and 67% felt comfortable speaking to their family physician about poverty. Conclusions. Asking patients directly about poverty may help identify patients with increased needs in primary care.

H omeless and vulnerably housed populations are heterogeneous 1 and continue to grow in numbers in urban and rural settings as forces of urbanization collide with gentrification and austerity policies. 2 Collectively, they face dangerous living conditions and marginalization within health care systems. 3 However, providers can improve the health of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed, most powerfully by following evidence-based initial steps, and working with communities and adopting anti-oppressive practices. 1,4,5 Broadly speaking, "homelessness" encompasses all individuals without stable, permanent and acceptable housing, or lacking the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it. 6 Under such conditions, individuals and families face intersecting social, mental and physical health risks that significantly increase morbidity and mortality. 7,8 For example, people who are homeless and vulnerably housed experience a significantly higher prevalence of trauma, mental health conditions and substance use disorders than the general population. 7,9 Canadian research reports that people who experience homelessness face life expectancies as low as 42 years for men and 52 years for women. 7 A generation ago, homeless Canadians were largely middleaged, single men in large urban settings. 10 Today, the epidemiology has shifted to include higher proportions of women, youth, Indigenous people (Box 1), immigrants, older adults and people from rural communities. 13,14 For example, family homelessness (and therefore homelessness among dependent children and youth) is a substantial, yet hidden, part of the crisis. 15 In 2014, of the estimated 235 000 homeless people in Canada, 27.3% were women, 18.7% were youth, 6% were recent immigrants or migrants, and a growing number were veterans and seniors. 10

Background: Community-based care fills an important service gap for patients living with chronic pain. Better understanding of unmet patient needs in the community may inform improved policy and resource allocation. Aims: The aim of this study was to describe patients presenting to a community-based, multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of 935 unique consecutive patients who completed an intake questionnaire between January 2016 and March 2017. All data were patient reported. Results: Nine hundred thirty-five patient records were analyzed for descriptive characteristics. The mean age of the population was 49.5 (SD = 14.9) years; 70% were female. Approximately 50% of patients lived below the poverty line in Vancouver; 30% were not working due to disability, 51% had pain for more than 5 years, and 63% reported severe functional impairment. Conclusions: Substantial unmet need is demonstrated in this patient population accessing a community-based chronic pain clinic. The population described is mainly of working age with significant functional impairment, reflecting a high level of need due to severity and duration of symptoms, poverty, and other characteristics described. RÉSUMÉ Contexte: Les soins communautaires comblent une lacune importante pour les patients qui souffrent de douleur chronique. Une meilleure compréhension des besoins des patients qui ne sont pas comblés au sein de la communauté pourrait permettre d'améliorer les politiques et l'allocation des ressources. But: Décrire les patients qui se présentent dans une clinique communautaire multidisciplinaire de douleur chronique à Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique (C.-B.). Méthodes: Étude transversale rétrospective de 935 patients uniques consécutifs qui ont répondu à un questionnaire d'admission entre janvier 2016 et mars 2017. Toutes les données étaient déclarées par les patients. Résultats: Les dossiers de 935 patients ont été analysés afin d'en tirer les caractéristiques descriptives. L'âge moyen de la population était de 49,5 ans (É.-C. 14,9) et 70 % étaient des femmes. Approximativement 50 % des patients vivaient sous le seuil de pauvreté à Vancouver, C.-B.; 30 % ne travaillaient pas en raison d'une incapacité, 51 % avaient de la douleur depuis plus de cinq ans et 63 % ont fait état d'une déficience fonctionnelle grave. Conclusions: Des besoins considérables demeurent non comblés au sein de cette population de patients ayant recours à une Clinique communautaire de douleur chronique. La population décrite est principalement en âge de travailler, ce qui démontre un niveau élevé de besoins en raison de la gravité et de la durée des symptômes, de la pauvreté et d'autres caractéristiques décrites.

Worldwide, over 1.8 billion people lack adequate housing and almost 25% of the world's urban population reside in informal accommodation (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019). "People with a lived experience of homelessness" is a term coined to describe individuals who are, have been, or at risk of becoming homeless. This population lacks stable, permanent, appropriate housing, or may be without immediate prospect, means and ability to acquire it. Such physical living situations can include emergency shelters or provisional accommodations (Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, 2017). This population continues to grow, giving rise to a major international clinical and public health priority. Homelessness is strongly associated with high levels of morbidity (Hwang, Wilkins, Tjepkema, O'Campo, & Dunn, 2009) and mortality (Nordentoft & Wandall-Holm, 2003). People with lived experience of homelessness are at an increased risk for acute illnesses, such as traumatic injury