Outcome of a controlled trial of the effectiveness of intensive case management for chronic public inebriates

Evaluating Intensity, Complexity, and Potential for Causal Inference in Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review

Importance

Interventions 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.

Objective

To 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 Review

This 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).

Findings

This 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 Relevance

Social 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.

The effectiveness of abstinence-based and harm reduction-based interventions in reducing problematic substance use in adults who are experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review

Background

Homelessness is a traumatic experience, and can have a devastating effect on those experiencing it. People who are homeless often face significant barriers when accessing public services, and have often experienced adverse childhood events, extreme social disadvantage, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, neglect, low self-esteem, poor physical and mental health, and much lower life expectancy compared to the general population. Rates of problematic substance use are disproportionately high, with many using drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of living on the street, to keep warm, or to block out memories of previous abuse or trauma. Substance dependency can also create barriers to successful transition to stable housing.

Objectives

To understand the effectiveness of different substance use interventions for adults experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

The primary source of studies for was the 4th edition of the Homelessness Effectiveness Studies Evidence and Gaps Maps (EGM). Searches for the EGM were completed in September 2021. Other potential studies were identified through a call for grey evidence, hand-searching key journals, and unpacking relevant systematic reviews.

Selection Criteria

Eligible studies were impact evaluations that involved some comparison group. We included studies that tested the effectiveness of substance use interventions, and measured substance use outcomes, for adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries.

Data Collection and Analysis

Descriptive characteristics and statistical information in included studies were coded and checked by at least two members of the review team. Studies selected for the review were assessed for confidence in the findings. Standardised effect sizes were calculated and, if a study did not provide sufficient raw data for the calculation of an effect size, author(s) were contacted to obtain these data. We used random-effects meta-analysis and robust-variance estimation procedures to synthesise effect sizes. If a study included multiple effects, we carried out a critical assessment to determine (even if only theoretically) whether the effects are likely to be dependent. Where dependent effects were identified, we used robust variance estimation to determine whether we can account for these. Where effect sizes were converted from a binary to continuous measure (or vice versa), we undertook a sensitivity analysis by running an additional analysis with these studies omitted. We also assessed the sensitivity of results to inclusion of non-randomised studies and studies classified as low confidence in findings. All included an assessment of statistical heterogeneity. Finally, we undertook analysis to assess whether publication bias was likely to be a factor in our findings. For those studies that we were unable to include in meta-analysis, we have provided a narrative synthesis of the study and its findings.

Main Results

We included 48 individual papers covering 34 unique studies. The studies covered 15, 255 participants, with all but one of the studies being from the United States and Canada. Most papers were rated as low confidence (n = 25, or 52%). By far the most common reason for studies being rated as low confidence was high rates of attrition and/or differential attrition of study participants, that fell below the What Works Clearinghouse liberal attrition standard. Eleven of the included studies were rated as medium confidence and 12 studies as high confidence. The interventions included in our analysis were more effective in reducing substance use than treatment as usual, with an overall effect size of -0.11 SD (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.27, 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the results were sensitive to the removal of low confidence studies (-0.21 SD, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.17] - 6 studies, 17 effect sizes), the removal of quasi-experimental studies (-0.14 SD, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02] - 14 studies, 41 effect sizes) and the removal of studies where an effect size had been converted from a binary to a continuous outcome (-0.08 SD, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15] - 10 studies, 31 effect sizes). This suggests that the findings are sensitive to the inclusion of lower quality studies, although unusually the average effect increases when we removed low confidence studies. The average effect for abstinence-based interventions compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) service provision was -0.28 SD (95% CI, -0.65, 0.09) (6 studies, 15 effect sizes), and for harm reduction interventions compared to a TAU service provision is close to 0 at 0.03 SD (95% CI, -0.08, 0.14) (9 studies, 30 effect sizes). The confidence intervals for both estimates are wide and crossing zero. For both, the comparison groups are primarily abstinence-based, with the exception of two studies where the comparison group condition was unclear. We found that both Assertative Community Treatment and Intensive Case Management were no better than treatment as usual, with average effect on substance use of 0.03 SD, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.13] and -0.47 SD, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.21] 0.05 SD, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39] respectively. These findings are consistent with wider research, and it is important to note that we only examined the effect on substance use outcomes (these interventions can be effective in terms of other outcomes). We found that CM interventions can be effective in reducing substance use compared to treatment as usual, with an average effect of -0.47 SD, 95% CI (-0.72, -0.21). All of these results need to be considered in light of the quality of the underlying evidence. There were six further interventions where we undertook narrative synthesis. These syntheses suggest that Group Work, Harm Reduction Psychotherapy, and Therapeutic Communities are effective in reducing substance use, with mixed results found for Motivational Interviewing and Talking Therapies (including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). The narrative synthesis suggested that Residential Rehabilitation was no better than treatment as usual in terms of reducing substance use for our population of interest.

Authors' Conclusions

Although our analysis of harm reduction versus treatment as usual, abstinence versus treatment as usual, and harm reduction versus abstinence suggests that these different approaches make little real difference to the outcomes achieved in comparison to treatment as usual. The findings suggest that some individual interventions are more effective than others. The overall low quality of the primary studies suggests that further primary impact research could be beneficial.

Improving oral health and related health behaviours (substance use, smoking, diet) in people with severe and multiple disadvantage: A systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions

BACKGROUND

People experiencing homelessness co-occurring with substance use or offending ('severe and multiple disadvantage' SMD) often have high levels of poor oral health and related health behaviours (particularly, substance use, smoking, poor diet). This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in adults experiencing SMD to improve oral health and related health behaviours.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

From inception to February 2023, five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus) and grey literature were searched. Two researchers independently screened the search results. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative studies and economic evaluations were included that reported outcomes on oral health and the related health behaviours. Risk of bias was assessed and results narratively synthesized. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. This review was registered with PROSPERO (reg. no: CRD42020202416). Thirty-eight studies were included (published between 1991 and 2023) with 34 studies reporting about effectiveness. Most studies reported on substance use (n = 30). Interventions with a combination of housing support with substance use and mental health support such as contingent work therapy appeared to show some reduction in substance use in SMD groups. However, meta-analyses showed no statistically significant results. Most studies had short periods of follow-up and high attrition rates. Only one study reported on oral health; none reported on diet. Three RCTs reported on smoking, of which one comprising nicotine replacement with contingency management showed improved smoking abstinence at 4 weeks compared to control. Five studies with economic evaluations provided some evidence that interventions such as Housing First and enhanced support could be cost-effective in reducing substance use.

CONCLUSION

This review found that services such as housing combined with other healthcare services could be effective in improving health behaviours, particularly substance use, among SMD groups. Gaps in evidence also remain on oral health improvement, smoking, and diet. High quality studies on effectiveness with adequate power and retention are needed to address these significant health challenges in SMD populations.

Exploring the effect of case management in homelessness per components: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation, with meta-analysis and thematic synthesis

Background

Adequate housing is a basic human right. The many millions of people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have a lower life expectancy and more physical and mental health problems. Practical and effective interventions to provide appropriate housing are a public health priority.

Objectives

To summarise the best available evidence relating to the components of case-management interventions for PEH via a mixed methods review that explored both the effectiveness of interventions and factors that may influence its impact.

Search Methods

We searched 10 bibliographic databases from 1990 to March 2021. We also included studies from Campbell Collaboration Evidence and Gap Maps and searched 28 web sites. Reference lists of included papers and systematic reviews were examined and experts contacted for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

We included all randomised and non-randomised study designs exploring case management interventions where a comparison group was used. The primary outcome of interest was homelessness. Secondary outcomes included health, wellbeing, employment and costs. We also included all studies where data were collected on views and experiences that may impact on implementation.

Data Collection and Analysis

We assessed risk of bias using tools developed by the Campbell Collaboration. We conducted meta-analyses of the intervention studies where possible and carried out a framework synthesis of a set of implementation studies identified by purposive sampling to represent the most 'rich' and 'thick' data.

Main Results

We included 64 intervention studies and 41 implementation studies. The evidence base was dominated by studies from the USA and Canada. Participants were largely (though not exclusively) people who were literally homeless, that is, living on the streets or in shelters, and who had additional support needs. Many studies were assessed as having a medium or high risk of bias. However, there was some consistency in outcomes across studies that improved confidence in the main findings.

Case Management and Housing Outcomes

Case management of any description was superior to usual care for homelessness outcomes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.51 [95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.71, -0.30]; p < 0.01). For studies included in the meta-analyses, Housing First had the largest observed impact, followed by Assertive Community Treatment, Critical Time Intervention and Intensive Case Management. The only statistically significant difference was between Housing First and Intensive Case Management (SMD = -0.6 [-1.1, -0.1]; p = 0.03) at ≥12 months. There was not enough evidence to compare the above approaches with standard case management within the meta-analyses. A narrative comparison across all studies was inconclusive, though suggestive of a trend in favour of more intensive approaches.

Case Management and Mental Health Outcomes

The overall evidence suggested that case management of any description was not more or less effective compared to usual care for an individual's mental health (SMD = 0.02 [-0.15, 0.18]; p = 0.817).

Case Management and Other Outcomes

Based on meta-analyses, case management was superior to usual care for capability and wellbeing outcomes up to 1 year (an improvement of around one-third of an SMD; p < 0.01) but was not statistically significantly different for substance use outcomes, physical health, and employment.

Case Management Components

For homelessness outcomes, there was a non-significant trend for benefits to be greater in the medium term (≤3 years) compared to long term (>3 years) (SMD = -0.64 [-1.04, -0.24] vs. -0.27 [-0.53, 0]; p = 0.16) and for in-person meetings in comparison to mixed (in-person and remote) approaches (SMD = -0.73 [-1.25,-0.21]) versus -0.26 [-0.5,-0.02]; p = 0.13). There was no evidence from meta-analyses to suggest that an individual case manager led to better outcomes then a team, and interventions with no dedicated case manager may have better outcomes than those with a named case manager (SMD = -0.36 [-0.55, -0.18] vs. -1.00 [-2.00, 0.00]; p = 0.02). There was not enough evidence from meta-analysis to assess whether the case manager should have a professional qualification, or if frequency of contact, case manager availability or conditionality (barriers due to conditions attached to service provision) influenced outcomes. However, the main theme from implementation studies concerned barriers where conditions were attached to services.

Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness

No conclusions could be drawn from meta-analysis other than a trend for greater reductions in homelessness for persons with high complexity of need (two or more support needs in addition to homelessness) as compared to those with medium complexity of need (one additional support need); effect sizes were SMD = -0.61 [-0.91, -0.31] versus -0.36 [-0.68, -0.05]; p = 0.3.

The Broader Context of Delivery of Case Management Programmes

Other major themes from the implementation studies included the importance of interagency partnership; provision for non-housing support and training needs of PEH (such as independent living skills), intensive community support following the move to new housing; emotional support and training needs of case managers; and an emphasis on housing safety, security and choice.

Cost Effectiveness

The 12 studies with cost data provided contrasting results and no clear conclusions. Some case management costs may be largely off-set by reductions in the use of other services. Cost estimates from three North American studies were $45-52 for each additional day housed.

Authors' Conclusions

Case management interventions improve housing outcomes for PEH with one or more additional support needs, with more intense interventions leading to greater benefits. Those with greater support needs may gain greater benefit. There is also evidence for improvements to capabilities and wellbeing. Current approaches do not appear to lead to mental health benefits. In terms of case management components, there is evidence in support of a team approach and in-person meetings and, from the implementation evidence, that conditions associated with service provision should be minimised. The approach within Housing First could explain the finding that overall benefits may be greater than for other types of case management. Four of its principles were identified as key themes within the implementation studies: No conditionality, offer choice, provide an individualised approach and support community building. Recommendations for further research include an expansion of the research base outside North America and further exploration of case management components and intervention cost-effectiveness.

Extended-Release Naltrexone and Case Management for Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of initiating treatment for alcohol use disorder with extended-release naltrexone and case management services in the emergency department (ED) and measure the intervention's impact on daily alcohol consumption and quality of life.

METHODS

This is a 12-week prospective open-label single-arm study of a multimodal treatment for alcohol use disorder consisting of monthly extended-release naltrexone injections and case management services initiated at an urban academic ED. Participants were actively drinking adult patients in ED with known or suspected alcohol use disorder and an AUDIT-C score more than 4. The main feasibility outcomes included the rates of participant enrollment, retention in the study, and continuing treatment after study completion. Efficacy outcomes were the change in daily alcohol consumption (drinks per day; 14 g ethanol per drink), measured by a 14-day timeline followback, and the change in quality of life measured with a single-item Kemp quality of life scale.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-nine patients were approached, and 32 were enrolled (18%). Of the 32 enrolled patients, 25 (78%) completed all visits, and 22 (69%) continued naltrexone after the trial. The mean baseline daily alcohol consumption was 7.6 drinks per day (interquartile range, 4.5, 13.4), and the mean quality of life was 3.6 (SD 1.7) on a 7-point scale. The median daily alcohol consumption change was -7.5 drinks per day (Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence interval -8.6, -5.9). The mean quality of life change was 1.2 points (95% confidence interval 0.5, 1.9; P<.01).

CONCLUSION

We found that initiation of treatment of alcohol use disorder with extended-release naltrexone and case management is feasible in an ED setting and observed significant reductions in drinking with improved quality of life in the short term. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to further validate these findings.

Racial Health Equity and Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review

Importance

Social 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.

Objective

To understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.

Evidence Review

Sources 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).

Findings

Of 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 Relevance

In 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.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

The effectiveness of case management interventions for the homeless, vulnerably housed and persons with lived experience: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed are at an increased risk for mental illness, other morbidities and premature death. Standard case management interventions as well as more intensive models with practitioner support, such as assertive community treatment, critical time interventions, and intensive case management, may improve healthcare navigation and outcomes. However, the definitions of these models as well as the fidelity and adaptations in real world interventions are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of case management interventions on health and social outcomes for homeless populations.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched Medline, Embase and 7 other electronic databases for trials on case management or care coordination, from the inception of these databases to July 2019. We sought outcomes on housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalization, income and employment, and cost-effectiveness. We calculated pooled random effects estimates and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 13,811 citations; and 56 primary studies met our full inclusion criteria. Standard case management had both limited and short-term effects on substance use and housing outcomes and showed potential to increase hostility and depression. Intensive case management substantially reduced the number of days spent homeless (SMD -0.22 95% CI -0.40 to -0.03), as well as substance and alcohol use. Critical time interventions and assertive community treatment were found to have a protective effect in terms of rehospitalizations and a promising effect on housing stability. Assertive community treatment was found to be cost-effective compared to standard case management.

CONCLUSIONS

Case management approaches were found to improve some if not all of the health and social outcomes that were examined in this study. The important factors were likely delivery intensity, the number and type of caseloads, hospital versus community programs and varying levels of participant needs. More research is needed to fully understand how to continue to obtain the increased benefits inherent in intensive case management, even in community settings where feasibility considerations lead to larger caseloads and less-intensive follow-up.

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Case Management for Substance Use Disorders: A Recovery Perspective

Background: Case management is a client-centered approach to improve the coordination and continuity of service delivery, especially for persons with substance use disorders (SUD) and multiple and complex support needs. This intervention supports individuals by helping them identify needed services, facilitate linkage with services, and promote participation and retention in services. However, it is questionable whether case management is equally effective in promoting recovery and aspects of personal functioning. The objective was to conduct an updated meta-analysis and to assess whether case management was more effective than treatment as usual (TAU) among persons with SUD for improving treatment-related (e.g., successful linkage with and retention in treatment) as well as personal functioning outcomes (e.g., substance use). Methods: This meta-analysis focuses on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included persons with alcohol or drug use disorders and compared case management with TAU. To be eligible, interventions had to meet core case management functions as defined in the literature. We conducted searches of the following databases to May 2017: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialized Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Also, reference lists of retrieved publications were scanned for relevant (un)published studies. Results: The overall effect size for case management compared to TAU across all outcome categories and moments was small and positive (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.28), but statistically significant. Effects were considerably larger for treatment tasks (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.48) than for personal functioning outcomes (SMD = 0.06, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.15). The largest effect sizes were found for retention in substance abuse treatment and linkage with substance abuse services. Moderator effects of case management models and conditions were assessed, but no significant differences were observed. Conclusions: The primary results from earlier meta-analyses were supported: case management is more effective than TAU conditions for improving outcomes, but this effect is significantly larger for treatment-related tasks than for personal functioning outcomes. Case management can be an important supplement to available services for improving linkage and retention, although further research is needed to assess its potential for supporting recovery from a longitudinal perspective.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: High intensity case managementHousing FirstCritical time interventionAbstinence-contingent housingNon-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case managementHousing vouchersResidential treatment These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability.

Plain Language Summary

Interventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effective: There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required.What is this review about?: There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless.What studies are included?: Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark.What are the main findings of this review?: Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: High intensity case managementHousing FirstCritical time interventionAbstinence-contingent housingNon-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case managementHousing vouchersResidential treatment These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability.What do the findings of this review mean?: A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Housing First compared to interventions other than usual services, and; 5) studies outside of the USA.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to January 2016. This Campbell systematic review was published in February 2018.

Executive summary

Background: The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) states that everyone has a right to housing. However, this right is far from being realized for many people worldwide. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are approximately 100 million homeless people worldwide. The aim of this report is to contribute evidence to inform future decision making and practice for preventing and reducing homelessness.Objectives: To identify, appraise and summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of housing programs and case management to improve housing stability and reduce homelessness among people who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.Search methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Norwegian Knowledge Centre's handbook. We systematically searched for literature in relevant databases and conducted a grey literature search which was last updated in January 2016.Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials that included individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless were included if they examined the effectiveness of relevant interventions on homelessness or housing stability. There were no limitations regarding language, country or length of homelessness. Two reviewers screened 2,918 abstracts and titles for inclusion. They read potentially relevant references in full, and included relevant studies in the review.Data collection and analysis: We pooled the results and conducted meta-analyses when possible. Our certainty in the primary outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for effectiveness approach (GRADE).Results: We included 43 relevant studies (described in 78 publications) that examined the effectiveness of housing programs and/or case management services on homelessness and/or housing stability. The results are summarized below. Briefly, we found that the included interventions performed better than the usual services in all comparisons. However, certainty in the findings varied from very low to moderate. Most of the studies were assessed as having high risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization and/or allocation concealment of participants.Case management: Case management is a process where clients are assigned case managers who assess, plan and facilitate access to health and social services necessary for the client's recovery. The intensity of these services can vary. One specific model is Critical time intervention, which is based on the same principles, but offered in three three-month periods that decrease in intensity.High intensity case management compared to usual services has generally more positive effects: It probably reduces the number of individuals who are homeless after 12-18 months by almost half (RR=0.59, 95%CI=0.41 to 0.87)(moderate certainty evidence); It may increase the number of people living in stable housing after 12-18 months and reduce the number of days an individual spends homeless (low certainty evidence), however; it may have no effect on the number of individuals who experience some homelessness during a two year period (low certainty evidence). When compared to low intensity case management, it may have little or no effect on time spent in stable housing (low certainty evidence).Critical time intervention compared to usual services may 1) have no effect on the number of people who experience homelessness, 2) lead to fewer days spent homeless, 3) lead to more days spent not homeless and, 4) reduce the amount of time it takes to move from shelter to independent housing (low certainty evidence).Abstinence-contingent housing programs: Abstinence-contingent housing is housing provided with the expectation that residents will remain sober. The results showed that abstinence-contingent housing may lead to fewer days spent homeless, compared with usual services (low certainty evidence).Non-abstinence-contingent housing programs: Non-abstinence-contingent housing is housing provided with no expectations regarding sobriety of residents. Housing First is the name of one specific non-abstinence-contingent housing program. When compared to usual services Housing First probably reduces the number of days spent homeless (MD=-62.5, 95%CI=-86.86 to -38.14) and increases the number of days in stable housing (MD=110.1, 95%CI=93.05 to 127.15) (moderate certainty evidence). In addition, it may increase the number of people placed in permanent housing after 20 months (low certainty evidence).Non-abstinence-contingent housing programs (not specified as Housing First) in combination with high intensity case management may reduce homelessness, compared to usual services (low certainty evidence). Group living arrangements may be better than individual apartments at reducing homelessness (low certainty evidence).Housing vouchers with case management: Housing vouchers is a housing allowance given to certain groups of people who qualify. The results showed that it mayreduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared with usual services or case management (low certainty evidence).Residential treatment with case management: Residential treatment is a type of housing offered to clients who also need treatment for mental illness or substance abuse. We found that it mayreduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared with usual services (low certainty evidence).Authors' conclusions: We found that a range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services. The findings showed no indication of housing programs or case management resulting in poorer outcomes for homeless or at-risk individuals than usual services.Aside from a general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research. We identified research gaps concerning: 1)Disadvantaged youth; 2) Abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) Non-abstinence contingent housing, specifically different living arrangements (group vs independent living); 4) Housing First compared to interventions other than usual services, and; 5) All interventions from contexts other than the USA.

Tobacco-, alcohol-, and drug-attributable deaths and their contribution to mortality disparities in a cohort of homeless adults in Boston

OBJECTIVES

We quantified tobacco-, alcohol-, and drug-attributable deaths and their contribution to mortality disparities among homeless adults.

METHODS

We ascertained causes of death among 28 033 adults seen at the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program in 2003 to 2008. We calculated population-attributable fractions to estimate the proportion of deaths attributable to tobacco, alcohol, or drug use. We compared attributable mortality rates with those for Massachusetts adults using rate ratios and differences.

RESULTS

Of 1302 deaths, 236 were tobacco-attributable, 215 were alcohol-attributable, and 286 were drug-attributable. Fifty-two percent of deaths were attributable to any of these substances. In comparison with Massachusetts adults, tobacco-attributable mortality rates were 3 to 5 times higher, alcohol-attributable mortality rates were 6 to 10 times higher, and drug-attributable mortality rates were 8 to 17 times higher. Disparities in substance-attributable deaths accounted for 57% of the all-cause mortality gap between the homeless cohort and Massachusetts adults.

CONCLUSIONS

In this clinic-based cohort of homeless adults, over half of all deaths were substance-attributable, but this did not fully explain the mortality disparity with the general population. Interventions should address both addiction and non-addiction sources of excess mortality.

Difficult behaviors in the emergency department: a cohort study of housed, homeless and alcohol dependent individuals

Background

This study contrasted annual rates of difficult behaviours in emergency departments among cohorts of individuals who were homeless and low-income housed and examined predictors of these events.

Methods

Interviews in 1999 with men who were chronically homeless with drinking problems (CHDP) (n = 50), men from the general homeless population (GH) (n = 61), and men residing in low-income housing (LIH) (n = 58) were linked to catchment area emergency department records (n = 2817) from 1994 to 1999. Interview and hospital data were linked to measures of difficult behaviours.

Results

Among the CHDP group, annual rates of visits with difficult behaviours were 5.46; this was 13.4 (95% CI 10.3–16.5) and 14.3 (95% CI 11.2–17.3) times higher than the GH and LIH groups. Difficult behaviour incidents included physical violence, verbal abuse, uncooperativeness, drug seeking, difficult histories and security involvement. Difficult behaviours made up 57.54% (95% CI 55.43–59.65%), 24% (95% CI 19–29%), and 20% (95% CI 16–24%) of CHDP, GH and LIH visits. Among GH and LIH groups, 87% to 95% were never involved in verbal abuse or violence. Intoxication increased all difficult behaviours while decreasing drug seeking and leaving without being seen. Verbal abuse and violence were less likely among those housed, with odds ratios of 0.24 (0.08, 0.72) and 0.32 (0.15, 0.69), respectively.

Conclusions

Violence and difficult behaviours are much higher among chronically homeless men with drinking problems than general homeless and low-income housed populations. They are concentrated among subgroups of individuals. Intoxication is the strongest predictor of difficult behaviour incidents.

WITHDRAWN: Case management for persons with substance use disorders

The review has been withdrawn from publication because it is out of date and the authors are currently not available for updating it

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Effectiveness of case management for homeless persons: a systematic review

We reviewed the literature on standard case management (SCM), intensive case management (ICM), assertive community treatment (ACT), and critical time intervention (CTI) for homeless adults. We searched databases for peer-reviewed English articles published from 1985 to 2011 and found 21 randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies comparing case management to other services. We found little evidence for the effectiveness of ICM. SCM improved housing stability, reduced substance use, and removed employment barriers for substance users. ACT improved housing stability and was cost-effective for mentally ill and dually diagnosed persons. CTI showed promise for housing, psychopathology, and substance use and was cost-effective for mentally ill persons. More research is needed on how case management can most effectively support rapid-rehousing approaches to homelessness.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Research on interventions to positively impact health and housing status of people who are homeless has received substantially increased attention over the past 5 years. This rapid review examines recent evidence regarding interventions that have been shown to improve the health of homeless people, with particular focus on the effect of these interventions on housing status.

METHODS

A total of 1,546 articles were identified by a structured search of five electronic databases, a hand search of grey literature and relevant journals, and contact with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the first 10% of titles and abstracts for relevance. Inter-rater reliability was high and as a result only one reviewer screened the remaining titles and abstracts. Articles were included if they were published between January 2004 and December 2009 and examined the effectiveness of an intervention to improve the health or healthcare utilization of people who were homeless, marginally housed, or at risk of homelessness. Two reviewers independently scored all relevant articles for quality.

RESULTS

Eighty-four relevant studies were identified; none were of strong quality while ten were rated of moderate quality. For homeless people with mental illness, provision of housing upon hospital discharge was effective in improving sustained housing. For homeless people with substance abuse issues or concurrent disorders, provision of housing was associated with decreased substance use, relapses from periods of substance abstinence, and health services utilization, and increased housing tenure. Abstinent dependent housing was more effective in supporting housing status, substance abstinence, and improved psychiatric outcomes than non-abstinence dependent housing or no housing. Provision of housing also improved health outcomes among homeless populations with HIV. Health promotion programs can decrease risk behaviours among homeless populations.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide important new evidence regarding interventions to improve health, housing status, and access to healthcare for homeless populations. The additional studies included in this current review provide further support for earlier evidence which found that coordinated treatment programs for homeless persons with concurrent mental illness and substance misuse issues usually result in better health and access to healthcare than usual care. This review also provides a synthesis of existing evidence regarding interventions that specifically support homeless populations with HIV.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of LHW interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current version of this review we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including citations uploaded from the EPOC and the CCRG registers) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1 Online) (searched 18 February 2009); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to February Week 1 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (February 13 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2009 Week 05) (searched 18 February 2009); AMED, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 19 February 2009); British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 to present (searched 07 February 2010); POPLINE (searched 25 February 2009); WHOLIS (searched 16 April 2009); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (1975 to present) (searched 10 August 2006 and 10 February 2010). We also searched the reference lists of all included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted study authors and researchers in the field for additional papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to improve maternal or child health or the management of infectious diseases. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to healthcare delivery, trained in some way in the context of the intervention, and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. There were no restrictions on care recipients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the study results were combined and an overall estimate of effect obtained.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content, and outcomes of interventions. The majority were conducted in high income countries (n = 55) but many of these focused on low income and minority populations. The diversity of included studies limited meta-analysis to outcomes for four study groups. These analyses found evidence of moderate quality of the effectiveness of LHWs in promoting immunisation childhood uptake (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; P = 0.0004); promoting initiation of breastfeeding (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; P < 0.00001), any breastfeeding (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.39; P = 0.0004), and exclusive breastfeeding (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.44; P <0.0001); and improving pulmonary TB cure rates (RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) P <0.0001), when compared to usual care. There was moderate quality evidence that LHW support had little or no effect on TB preventive treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; P = 0.99). There was also low quality evidence that LHWs may reduce child morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and child (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; P = 0.07) and neonatal (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; P = 0.07) mortality, and increase the likelihood of seeking care for childhood illness (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.05; P = 0.20). For other health issues, the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, or to enable the identification of specific LHW training or intervention strategies likely to be most effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LHWs provide promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and breastfeeding, improving TB treatment outcomes, and reducing child morbidity and mortality when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of LHWs.

Attrition bias in a U.S. Internet survey of alcohol use among college freshmen

OBJECTIVE

Attrition bias is an important issue in survey research on alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. The issue is even more salient for Internet studies, because these studies often have higher rates of attrition than face-to-face or telephone surveys, and there is limited research examining the issue in the field of drug usage, specifically for college underclassmen. This study assessed whether measures of high-risk drinking and alcohol-related consequences were related to attrition groups ("stayers" or "leavers") in a cohort of college freshmen.

METHOD

Data were collected in 2003 and 2004 from 2,144 first-year college students at 10 universities in the southeastern United States. Demographics, indicators of high-risk drinking, and alcohol-related consequences were compared between cohort stayers and leavers in statistical analyses using two methods.

RESULTS

Analyses indicated that cohort leavers reported significantly higher levels of high-risk drinking (past-30-day heavy episodic drinking, weekly drunkenness) and past-30-day smoking but not significantly increased alcohol-related consequences. The directionality of bias was modestly consistent across outcomes and comparison methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study's findings suggest that intervention efforts to reduce smoking or high-risk drinking need to consider attrition bias during study follow-up or account for it in analyses.

Adherence to Scheduled Sessions in a Randomized Field Trial of Case Management: The Criminal Justice-Drug Abuse Treatment Studies Transitional Case Management Study

The Transitional Case Management (TCM) study, one of the projects of the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative, was a multi-site randomized test of whether a strengths-based case management intervention provided during an inmate's transition from incarceration to the community increases participation in community substance abuse treatment, enhances access to needed social services, and improves drug use and crime outcomes. As in many intervention studies, TCM experienced a relatively large percentage of treatment-group participants who attended few or no scheduled sessions. The paper discusses issues with regard to participation in community case management sessions, examines patterns of session attendance among TCM participants, and analyzes client and case manager characteristics that are associated with number of sessions attended and with patterns of attendance. The average number of sessions (out of 12) attended was 5.7. Few client or case manager characteristics were found to be significantly related to session attendance. Clinical and research implications of the findings and of adherence in case management generally are discussed.

Case management for persons with substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Patients with alcohol and other drug use disorders (AOD) frequently have multiple social, physical, and mental health treatment needs, yet have difficulty accessing community services, including drug abuse treatment. One strategy for linking patients with AOD with relevant services is case management, where a single case manager is responsible for linking patients with multiple relevant services.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of all RCTs on the use of case management for helping drug abusers in or out of treatment. Outcome criteria included successful linkage with other services, illicit drug use outcomes, and a range of related outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - 2006), EMBASE (1980 - 2006), LILACS (1982 - 2006), PsycINFO (1973 - 2006), Biological Abstracts (1982 t- 2000). Reference searching; personal communication; conference abstracts; book chapters on case management.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled studies that compared a specific model of case management with either treatment as usual or another treatment model, included only patients with at least one alcohol or drug related problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of reviewers extracted the data independently . Standardized mean difference was estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we could extract results from 15 studies. Outcome on illicit drug use was reported from 7 studies with 2391 patients. The effect size for illicit drug use was not significant, and small (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.12, confidence interval=-0.09,0.29, p=0.20). Substantial heterogeneity was found (I(2)=69.9%). Linkage to other treatment services was reported in 10 studies with 3132 patients. The effect size for linkage was moderate (SMD=0.42, 95% confidence interval=0.21 to 0.62, p<0.001), but substantial heterogeneity was found (I(2)=85.2%). Moderator analyses suggested that a part of the heterogeneity found in linkage studies could be explained by the presence or absence of a treatment manual for case management. A single, large trial of case management with two arms, showed that case management was superior to psychoeducation and drug counselling in reducing drug use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is current evidence supporting that case management can enhance linkage with other services. However, evidence that case management reduces drug use or produce other beneficial outcome is not conclusive.

Effectiveness of different models of case management for substance-abusing populations

Case management has been implemented in substance abuse treatment to improve (cost-) effectiveness, but controversy exists about its potential to realize this objective. A systematic and comprehensive review of peer-reviewed articles (n = 48) published between 1993 and 2003 is presented, focusing on the effects of different models of case management among various substance-abusing populations. Results show that several studies have reported positive effects, but only some randomized and controlled trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of case management compared with other interventions. Longitudinal effects of this intervention remain unclear. Although no compelling evidence was found for the effectiveness of case management, some evidence is available about the (differential) effectiveness of intensive case management and assertive community treatment for homeless and dually-diagnosed substance abusers. Strengths-based and generalist case management have proven to be relatively effective for substance abusers in general. Most positive effects concern reduced use of inpatient services and increased utilization of community-based services, prolonged treatment retention, improved quality of life, and high client satisfaction. Outcomes concerning drug use and psychosocial functioning are less consistent, but seem to be mediated by retention in treatment and case management. Further research is required to learn more about the extent of the effects of this intervention, how long these are sustained and what specific elements cause particular outcomes.

Comparison of single and multiple agency clients in substance abuse treatment services

BACKGROUND

Frequent and multiple service utilization among substance abusers is a well-known problem. However, little statistical evidence exists about overlapping agency populations.

METHODS

This phenomenon was studied in a clear-cut region in Belgium, based on intake information concerning all clients who addressed a drug treatment center within a 6-month period (n=1,139).

RESULTS

Multiple service utilization was rather common but not omnipresent during this particular registration period. Almost 15% of the clients were registered in more than one substance abuse treatment agency. Compared to single agency attendees, multiple agency clients appeared to be more often poly-substance abusers with a longer previous treatment history and greater problem severity.

CONCLUSION

A continuous care perspective, interagency collaboration and a common tracking and documentation system are recommended to better address the needs of this specific subgroup of substance abusers. More research is needed to clarify whether these multiple service utilization patterns are caused by client-related, agency-related or other factors.

Shelter-based managed alcohol administration to chronically homeless people addicted to alcohol

BACKGROUND

People who are homeless and chronically alcoholic have increased health problems, use of emergency services and police contact, with a low likelihood of rehabilitation. Harm reduction is a policy to decrease the adverse consequences of substance use without requiring abstinence. The shelter-based Managed Alcohol Project (MAP) was created to deliver health care to homeless adults with alcoholism and to minimize harm; its effect upon consumption of alcohol and use of crisis services is described as proof of principle.

METHODS

Subjects enrolled in MAP were dispensed alcohol on an hourly basis. Hospital charts were reviewed for all emergency department (ED) visits and admissions during the 3 years before and up to 2 years after program enrollment, and the police database was accessed for all encounters during the same periods. The results of blood tests were analyzed for trends. A questionnaire was administered to MAP participants and staff about alcohol use, health and activities of daily living before and during the program. Direct program costs were also recorded.

RESULTS

Seventeen adults with an average age of 51 years and a mean duration of alcoholism of 35 years were enrolled in MAP for an average of 16 months. Their monthly mean group total of ED visits decreased from 13.5 to 8 (p = 0.004); police encounters, from 18.1 to 8.8 (p = 0.018). Changes in blood test findings were nonsignificant. All program participants reported less alcohol consumption during MAP, and subjects and staff alike reported improved hygiene, compliance with medical care and health.

INTERPRETATION

A managed alcohol program for homeless people with chronic alcoholism can stabilize alcohol intake and significantly decrease ED visits and police encounters.

A comparison of agency-based and self-report methods of measuring services across an urban environment by a drug-abusing homeless population

The purpose of this paper is to advance the methodology for studying service assessment by comparing self-report and agency-generated methods. This study compares 30-day self-reported service use for homeless individuals (N = 229) randomly recruited from a single urban environment (St Louis, Missouri) with similar data collected from a broad array of service agencies providing homeless, substance abuse and outpatient mental health services across the same environment. Comparisons were made between self-report and agency-based data on shelter use, outpatient mental health service use (case management, psychiatric treatment, group therapy), outpatient substance abuse service use (case management, counselling, group therapy) and drop-in/day treatment use. Consistently low levels of kappa scores (all under 0.4) and correlation coefficients (only shelter use demonstrated significant agreement) were found. Findings demonstrated that the two methods of collecting service data are generally not concordant at the individual level. Certain demographic characteristics (increased age, being male, non-white ethnicity) and diagnoses (cocaine abuse/dependence, mania, schizophrenia) were associated with decreased reliability between the two methods of data collection. The two methods of assessment appeared to capture overlapping but not identical information. Each method of assessment has different utility to researchers and providers wishing to assess service use.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care

BACKGROUND

Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. However, little is known about the effectiveness of LHW interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on health care behaviours, patients' health and wellbeing, and patients' satisfaction with care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and Consumers and Communication specialised registers (to August 2001); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to August 2001); MEDLINE (1966- August 2001); EMBASE (1966-August 2001); Science Citations (to August 2001); CINAHL (1966-June 2001); Healthstar (1975-2000); AMED (1966-August 2001); the Leeds Health Education Effectiveness Database and the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to promote health, manage illness or provide support to patients. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to health care delivery; trained in some way in the context of the intervention; and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificated or degreed tertiary education. There were no restrictions on the types of consumers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data onto a standard form and assessed study quality. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the results of included studies were combined and an estimate of effect obtained.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty three studies met the inclusion criteria, involving more than 210,110 consumers. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content and outcomes of interventions. Most were conducted in high income countries (n=35), but nearly half of these focused on low income and minority populations (n=15). Study diversity limited meta-analysis to outcomes for five subgroups (n=15 studies) (LHW interventions to promote the uptake of breast cancer screening, immunisation and breastfeeding promotion [before two weeks and between two weeks and six months post partum] and to improve diagnosis and treatment for selected infectious diseases). Promising benefits in comparison with usual care were shown for LHW interventions to promote immunisation uptake in children and adults (RR=1.30 [95% CI 1.14, 1.48] p=0.0001) and LHW interventions to improve outcomes for selected infectious diseases (RR=0.74 [95% CI 0.58, 0.93) p=0.01). LHWs also appear promising for breastfeeding promotion. They appear to have a small effect in promoting breast cancer screening uptake when compared with usual care. For the remaining subgroups (n=29 studies), the outcomes were too diverse to allow statistical pooling. We can therefore draw no general conclusions on the effectiveness of these subgroups of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LHWs show promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and improving outcomes for acute respiratory infections and malaria, when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to justify recommendations for policy and practice. There is also insufficient evidence to assess which LHW training or intervention strategies are likely to be most effective. Further research is needed in these areas.

The development and implementation of case management for substance use disorders in North America and Europe

Because of the multifaceted, chronic, and relapsing nature of substance use disorders, case management has been adapted to work with persons who have these disorders. Deliberate implementation has been identified as a powerful determinant of successful case management. This article focuses on six key questions about implementation of case management services on the basis of a comparison of experiences from the United States, the Netherlands, and Belgium. It was found that case management has been applied in various populations with substance use disorders, and distinct models have been associated with positive effects, such as increased treatment participation and retention, greater use of services, and beneficial drug-related outcomes. Program fidelity, robust implementation, extensive training and supervision, administrative support, a team approach, integration in a comprehensive network of services, and minimal continuity have all been linked to successful implementation.

Employment outcomes for hard-to-reach persons with chronic and severe substance use disorders receiving assertive community treatment

Many persons with chronic and severe substance use disorders (SUDs) enter and exit public substance dependence treatment systems with limited benefit, but continue overuse of high-cost health and human services. Less than a third holds jobs, earning income below U.S. federal poverty levels. Long-term integrated substance dependency treatment, rehabilitation, and support services will be essential to resolve substance dependence and employment problems. This single-group program evaluation reports adaptation of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT), a multi-component, team-based service model originally designed for persons with severe mental illnesses and multiple disabilities, for effectiveness with persons with severe SUDs. The ACT model delivers an integrated package of treatment, rehabilitation, and support to reduce substance misuse and increase employment. Of the 35 clients admitted 12 months prior to conclusion of this 2-year service demonstration, only one left treatment prematurely. Generally, clients modestly reduced substance misuse and increased employment. However, the evaluation design and small sample limit inferences of causation and generalizability of these promising outcomes. Persuading states to adopt expensive team-based approaches for this population will require firm evidence of favorable cost-benefit ratios.

Disaffiliation, substance use, and exiting homelessness

This study tested whether social affiliation was associated with exits from homelessness for a county-wide probability sample of 397 homeless adults who were followed over a 15-month period culminating in 1992. For the total sample, support from family or friends and service use were related to an increased likelihood of exiting from homelessness. Surprisingly, exits from homelessness were associated with social affiliation (i.e., support from family/friends and services use) only among homeless adults who did not have current substance-use disorders. This relationship did not hold for those with current substance-use disorders. Findings suggest that homeless adults without current substance-use disorders may be better able to engage services and support from family/friends to exit homelessness than homeless adults who have current substance-use disorders. Perhaps service providers who are targeting homeless adults with substance-use disorders and want to help them exit homelessness need to emphasize initiating substance-use treatment before addressing other issues.

The individual and beyond: a socio-rational choice model of service participation among homeless adults with substance abuse problems

While substance user service programs can help homeless adults solve their substance use and housing problems, relatively few needy individuals use and complete these programs. The lack of participation is poorly explained by typical empirical studies, most of which consider the role in service participation of various personal traits and client problems. The current article instead seeks to explain service participation through the application of an alternative, "socio-rational choice" model. This model has three premises: Clients weigh the costs and benefits of participating in services against alternative uses of their time and resources. The clients' weighing procedures reflect their personal situations and perceptions of the treatment environment. The perceptions of their personal situations and perceptions of the treatment environment are affected by the manner in which clients react to representatives of service systems, members of their social network including both housed and homeless persons, and other individuals. Secondary evidence supports many of the model's hypotheses and generally suggests that homeless clients may be heavily affected by their experiences with individuals and systems with which they come into contact.