PROTOCOL: Improving access to health and social services for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness

Abstract

The title should be in headline style summarising the main findings of the review, for example, "enforcing conditions makes cash transfers more effective in increasing enrolments" and "detention of asylum seekers has adverse effects on mental health". The title for empty reviews can state that there is no evidence, for example, "there is no rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of refugee resettlement programs". Titles can also reflect the size of the effects or the quality of the evidence, for example, "Limited evidence and limited effects of advocacy to reduce intimate partner violence". 1.1 | The review in brief A short summary of the main findings of the review. This section may be no more than one sentence, and should not exceed 50 words. For example, "custodial sentences are no better than non-custodial sentences in reducing re-offending". Selective outcome reporting is to be avoided. So reviews with several primary outcomes will require a longer review in brief section, for example, "Intensive advocacy may improve everyday life for women in domestic violence shelters/refuges and reduce physical abuse. There is no clear evidence that intensive advocacy reduces sexual, emotional, or overall abuse, or that it benefits women's mental health. It is unclear whether brief advocacy is effective". 1.2 | What is this review about? This section should include: • A "problem statement" of the issue being addressed. For example, "half of all crime takes place in small, localised areas, or hot spots"; and "forests are an important resource for managing climate change because they store carbon, which helps mitigates the effect of carbon emissions. However, the amount of forest cover, particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), is declining. Deforestation is responsible for 10-17% of global carbon emissions". • A clear description of the intervention being assessed. For example, "Payment for environmental services are voluntary contracts to supply a well-defined environmental service in exchange for payment. For the purposes of this review, the service must involve the maintenance or rehabilitation of natural forests". • The outcomes included in the review. For example "this review looked at whether custodial and alternative noncustodial sanctions have different effects on the rates of re-offending". • Optional: the policy question being addressed. For example, "the review considers evidence regarding the debate about whether PESs should also aim to reduce poverty, or whether doing so would undermine conservation efforts".

The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build evidence architecture

“…However, the map also showed that homelessness is an 'under-reviewed' area: of the 264 studies in the first map, only 21 -fewer than 10% -were reviews, and most these reviews were in the health sector. The map was used to identify three priority topic areas for which reviews were commissioned from Queen's University Belfast: discharge, access to health, and accommodation-based approaches (Hanratty et al, 2020;Miller et al, 2020;and Keenan et al, 2020, respectively). The reviews were based on the studies in the map so no additional search was required.…”