Evaluating an intervention for homeless persons: Results of a field experiment.
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 36 publications
References 2 publications
Evaluating Intensity, Complexity, and Potential for Causal Inference in Social Needs Interventions
ImportanceInterventions that address needs such as low income, housing instability, and safety are increasingly appearing in the health care sector as part of multifaceted efforts to improve health and health equity, but evidence relevant to scaling these social needs interventions is limited.ObjectiveTo summarize the intensity and complexity of social needs interventions included in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and assess whether these RCTs were designed to measure the causal effects of intervention components on behavioral, health, or health care utilization outcomes.Evidence ReviewThis review of a scoping review was based on a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute–funded evidence map of English-language US-based RCTs of social needs interventions published between January 1, 1995, and April 6, 2023. Studies were assessed for features related to intensity (defined using modal values as providing as-needed interaction, 8 participant contacts or more, contacts occurring every 2 weeks or more often, encounters of 30 minutes or longer, contacts over 6 months or longer, or home visits), complexity (defined as addressing multiple social needs, having dedicated staff, involving multiple intervention components or practitioners, aiming to change multiple participant behaviors [knowledge, action, or practice], requiring or providing resources or active assistance with resources, and permitting tailoring), and the ability to assess causal inferences of components (assessing interventions, comparators, and context).FindingsThis review of a scoping review of social needs interventions identified 77 RCTs in 93 publications with a total of 135 690 participants. Most articles (68 RCTs [88%]) reported 1 or more features of high intensity. All studies reported 1 or more features indicative of high complexity. Because most studies compared usual care with multicomponent interventions that were moderately or highly dependent on context and individual factors, their designs permitted causal inferences about overall effectiveness but not about individual components.Conclusions and RelevanceSocial needs interventions are complex, intense, and include multiple components. Our findings suggest that RCTs of these interventions address overall intervention effectiveness but are rarely designed to distinguish the causal effects of specific components despite being resource intensive. Future studies with hybrid effectiveness-implementation and sequential designs, and more standardized reporting of intervention intensity and complexity could help stakeholders assess the return on investment of these interventions.
Evaluating Intensity, Complexity, and Potential for Causal Inference in Social Needs Interventions
ImportanceInterventions that address needs such as low income, housing instability, and safety are increasingly appearing in the health care sector as part of multifaceted efforts to improve health and health equity, but evidence relevant to scaling these social needs interventions is limited.ObjectiveTo summarize the intensity and complexity of social needs interventions included in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and assess whether these RCTs were designed to measure the causal effects of intervention components on behavioral, health, or health care utilization outcomes.Evidence ReviewThis review of a scoping review was based on a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute–funded evidence map of English-language US-based RCTs of social needs interventions published between January 1, 1995, and April 6, 2023. Studies were assessed for features related to intensity (defined using modal values as providing as-needed interaction, 8 participant contacts or more, contacts occurring every 2 weeks or more often, encounters of 30 minutes or longer, contacts over 6 months or longer, or home visits), complexity (defined as addressing multiple social needs, having dedicated staff, involving multiple intervention components or practitioners, aiming to change multiple participant behaviors [knowledge, action, or practice], requiring or providing resources or active assistance with resources, and permitting tailoring), and the ability to assess causal inferences of components (assessing interventions, comparators, and context).FindingsThis review of a scoping review of social needs interventions identified 77 RCTs in 93 publications with a total of 135 690 participants. Most articles (68 RCTs [88%]) reported 1 or more features of high intensity. All studies reported 1 or more features indicative of high complexity. Because most studies compared usual care with multicomponent interventions that were moderately or highly dependent on context and individual factors, their designs permitted causal inferences about overall effectiveness but not about individual components.Conclusions and RelevanceSocial needs interventions are complex, intense, and include multiple components. Our findings suggest that RCTs of these interventions address overall intervention effectiveness but are rarely designed to distinguish the causal effects of specific components despite being resource intensive. Future studies with hybrid effectiveness-implementation and sequential designs, and more standardized reporting of intervention intensity and complexity could help stakeholders assess the return on investment of these interventions.
ImportanceThere have been no published randomized clinical trials with a primary outcome of socioeconomic inclusion for young people who have experienced homelessness.ObjectiveTo explore whether young people exiting homelessness who received rent subsidies and adult mentorship experienced more socioeconomic inclusion relative to young people who received only rent subsidies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a convergent mixed-methods, unblinded, 2-group, parallel randomized clinical trial with 1:1 allocation embedded within a community-based framework in 3 cities in Ontario, Canada. Participants were enrolled between March 1 and September 30, 2019, and were followed up through March 31, 2022.InterventionsParticipants (n = 24) were randomly assigned adult mentors (n = 13) who had been recruited and screened by community partner agencies. All participants received portable rent subsidies (subsidy not tied to a specific location) for 2 years.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary quantitative outcomes were self-reported measures of community integration (psychological and physical) and self-esteem—proxy indicators of socioeconomic inclusion. Community integration was measured with the Community Integration Scale, with a score range of 1 to 7 for the physical component and 4 to 20 for the psychological component; higher scores indicate higher integration. Self-esteem was measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, with a score range of 0 to 30; higher scores indicate greater self-esteem. Secondary quantitative outcomes included social connectedness, hopelessness, and academic and vocational participation. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsA total of 24 youths (12 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 21.8 [2.2] years [range, 18-26 years]; race and ethnicity: 10 White [41.7%], 8 Black [33.3%], 2 Asian [8.3%], 2 Indigenous [8.3%], and 2 different choice [8.3%]) transitioned out of homelessness and into market-rent housing. All youths in the group that received mentorship and in the group that did not receive mentorship had stable or nonsignificant improvements in all study outcomes at the primary end point of 18 months compared with baseline (mean [SD] Community Integration Scale psychological score: mentorship group, 11.3 [2.6] at baseline and 11.2 [3.9] at 18 months; no-mentorship group, 10.8 [4.1] at baseline and 13.2 [2.9] at 18 months; mean [SD] Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale score: mentorship group, 16.0 [4.6] at baseline and 18.1 [5.2] at 18 months; no-mentorship group, 16.3 [6.1] at baseline and 19.6 [5.7] at 18 months). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the Community Integration Scale psychological score (adjusted mean difference, −2.0; 95% CI, −5.0 to 1.0; P = .18) and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale score (adjusted mean difference, −1.4; 95% CI, −5.0 to 2.3; P = .44) 18 months after randomization. Ancillary analysis suggested that youths with informal mentors (mentors outside the study) at baseline felt more psychologically integrated at 18 months relative to those with no informal mentors at baseline (adjusted mean difference, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.4-6.8; P = .03).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, COVID-19 pandemic–related restrictions made it challenging for mentors and mentees to connect, which may have affected the findings. Steady socioeconomic outcomes—potentially attributable to portable rent subsidies—are noteworthy, given the socioeconomic inequities this population has faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The possible benefit of informal mentorship warrants further investigation. This small pilot study was designed with the intention of generating data and hypotheses for a full-scale study; findings should be interpreted with caution.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03779204
ImportanceSocial needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities.ObjectiveTo understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.Evidence ReviewSources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was “conceptually thoughtful” for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were “analytically informative” for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity).FindingsOf 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
