Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Common trust and personal safety issues: A systematic review on the acceptability of health and social interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness

  • Olivia Magwood,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Vanessa Ymele Leki,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation PET/CT Department, MyHealth Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada

  • Victoire Kpade,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada

  • Ammar Saad,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Qasem Alkhateeb,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Akalewold Gebremeskel,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Asia Rehman,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Terry Hannigan,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Nicole Pinto,

    Roles Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

  • Annie Huiru Sun,

    Roles Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Claire Kendall,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Department of Family Medicine & School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • Nicole Kozloff,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • Emily J. Tweed,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

  • David Ponka,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Kevin Pottie

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    kpottie@uottawa.ca

    Affiliations C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Department of Family Medicine & School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Common trust and personal safety issues: A systematic review on the acceptability of health and social interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness

  • Olivia Magwood, 
  • Vanessa Ymele Leki, 
  • Victoire Kpade, 
  • Ammar Saad, 
  • Qasem Alkhateeb, 
  • Akalewold Gebremeskel, 
  • Asia Rehman, 
  • Terry Hannigan, 
  • Nicole Pinto, 
  • Annie Huiru Sun
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

Persons experiencing homelessness and vulnerable housing or those with lived experience of homelessness have worse health outcomes than individuals who are stably housed. Structural violence can dramatically affect their acceptance of interventions. We carried out a systematic review to understand the factors that influence the acceptability of social and health interventions among persons with lived experience of homelessness.

Methods

We searched through eight bibliographic databases and selected grey literature sources for articles that were published between 1994 and 2019. We selected primary studies that reported on the experiences of homeless populations interacting with practitioners and service providers working in permanent supportive housing, case management, interventions for substance use, income assistance, and women- and youth-specific interventions. Each study was independently assessed for its methodological quality. We used a framework analysis to identify key findings and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in the key findings.

Findings

Our search identified 11,017 citations of which 35 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. Our synthesis highlighted that individuals were marginalized, dehumanized and excluded by their lived homelessness experience. As a result, trust and personal safety were highly valued within human interactions. Lived experience of homelessness influenced attitudes toward health and social service professionals and sometimes led to reluctance to accept interventions. Physical and structural violence intersected with low self-esteem, depression and homeless-related stigma. Positive self-identity facilitated links to long-term and integrated services, peer support, and patient-centred engagement.

Conclusions

Individuals with lived experience of homelessness face considerable marginalization, dehumanization and structural violence. Practitioners and social service providers should consider anti-oppressive approaches and provide, refer to, or advocate for health and structural interventions using the principles of trauma-informed care. Accepting and respecting others as they are, without judgment, may help practitioners navigate barriers to inclusiveness, equitability, and effectiveness for primary care that targets this marginalized population.

Introduction

Persons with lived experience of homelessness and vulnerable housing are an excluded population that is growing worldwide due to increasing costs of living, forces of urbanization,[1] and economic crises and their associated austerity policies.[24] Indeed, the number of individuals experiencing vulnerable housing conditions has reached 1.8 billion worldwide.[5] Over time, this population has struggled with mental health and addiction,[6] profound societal stigma, and structural violence, conditions which have led to high rates of treatment recidivism and inequitably low life expectancy rates.[7,8] Inadequate housing has been universally endorsed as a violation of human rights,[9] leading to international commitments to provide affordable and adequate housing services, within the next decade, through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

“Structural violence” describes the social arrangements that put individuals and populations in harm's way through systematic exclusion over time.[10] These arrangements are considered structural because they are embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world; they are violent because they cause harm to people.[11] Structural violence manifests as unequal access to social systems of support like housing, health care, education and employment.[12] For example, the inability for individuals with “no fixed address” to receive coverage for healthcare or social services demonstrates how structural violence could stand in the way of addressing fundamental human needs.[13,14] Despite the impact of these structures on some of the most underserved patients, with few exceptions, primary care practitioners are not trained to influence such social forces[11] nor do they consistently have the capacity to adequately address their related social determinants of health [15]. To reduce structural violence and achieve health equity, practitioners and health systems must address the needs of underserved populations. Primary care providers have an opportunity to identify and act on social issues at the point of care by connecting patients with various support resources within and beyond the health system, such as local support groups, housing advocacy organizations or employment agencies.[16] Clinical practice guidelines represent an evidence-based tool designed to support providers’ decisions when delivering primary health care to persons with lived experience of homelessness. Such guidelines should consider the acceptability of the recommended community resources and interventions.

Interventions must emerge from local contexts and meet the essential needs and preferences of persons with lived experience of homelessness.[1720] The content, scale and intensity of interventions should be proportionate to the level of social, economic or environmental disadvantage someone faces and the support they need.[21] Such interventions are complex in nature,[2224] resulting in challenges to optimizing their design and delivery so as to guarantee the best health and social outcomes. There is wide agreement that a broad range of evidence is needed to inform decisions on the implementation of complex interventions, especially those that have impacts across the health or social care system.[25] Data from qualitative research contributes critical information to help decision-makers effectively address this need. The views of people experiencing social exclusion, such as homelessness, should be used to guide programs and practitioners so as to ensure that health and social services are inclusive, equitable, and effective.[17] As an example, many existing effective interventions have the potential to help the homeless and vulnerably housed forge routes out of homelessness.[17,2628] However, the acceptability of these interventions is necessary for effectiveness, without this participants may fail to adhere to recommendations or benefit from improved outcomes.[29]

This review is one of a series of reviews to inform national clinical practice guidelines for the care of homeless or vulnerably housed persons. We conducted a Delphi consensus process that included 84 practitioners and 76 persons with lived experience of homelessness to prioritize relevant interventions which could be referred to by primary care providers, including permanent supportive housing, case management, income assistance, interventions for substance use, and women- and youth-focused interventions.[30] Our research team conducted parallel systematic reviews which evaluated the effectiveness of these interventions.[27,28,3133] Given that health and structural interventions are affected by multiple intersecting factors that might not be captured in a quantitative review, the objective of this systematic review of qualitative studies is to understand the factors that influence the acceptability of these health and structural interventions from the perspective of persons who are homeless or vulnerably housed.

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

We conducted a systematic review according to a published protocol.[34] We included persons with lived experience of homelessness through all stages of this review so as to improve the relevance and applicability of the findings. Specifically, these individuals participated in the prioritization of selected interventions and populations of interest and in the interpretation of the qualitative key findings. We used the PRISMA guidelines to report our findings [35](See S1 File). Ethical approval was not required for this study.

Studies were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review if they utilized a qualitative design, involved data collection and analysis, and included at least one of the interventions specified in our protocol (S2 File). These reports could be published in any language. Mixed-method and quantitative studies were not eligible for inclusion as they are less likely to provide rich data compared with standalone qualitative studies.[36] We focused on studies whose participants were homeless or vulnerably housed, defined as individuals who are unsheltered, emergency sheltered, provisionally accommodated, or at risk of homelessness.[37] The subpopulations of interest included women, youth, and people with acquired brain injury or intellectual or physical disabilities, which were identified as priority groups in our Delphi consensus.[30] We excluded studies that focused exclusively on indigenous-specific interventions, as an examination of these interventions is being conducted by an indigenous-specific research team. The geographic setting was restricted to high-income countries [38] that have acknowledged affordable housing as a human right.[9] We excluded low-quality studies. (See S3 File for the full inclusion criteria).

We developed a systematic search for qualitative literature, using relevant keywords and MeSH terms (S4 File). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ERIC via Ovid; and ProQuest Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and Sociology Database for qualitative studies published from January 1st, 1994 to September 4th, 2019. We also searched grey literature for relevant studies and reports (S5 File). We did not hand-search for additional studies.

The identified studies were uploaded to Rayyan reference manager software to facilitate study selection.[39] Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts; disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. We assessed the methodological quality of remaining studies by using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.[40] CASP checklists are widely used in the health care domain and offer guidance for the critical appraisal with respect to trustworthiness, results and relevance of research studies. Criteria for the quality assessment of qualitative studies include the appraisal of a clearly stated aim, an appropriate qualitative methodology, and the consideration of ethical issues. We used the scoring system developed by Butler and colleagues (2016) to rate studies as high-, moderate-, or low-quality and report individual study assessments in the S6 File [41]. As done in other recent systematic reviews of qualitative studies [4244] and in line with guidance available from the Cochrane Handbook[45], we excluded low-quality studies from the synthesis of our systematic review based on the outcome of our critical appraisal.

Data analysis

We used a standardized data extraction sheet that included the study methodology, population, intervention, findings, study limitations, and funding details. Data were extracted by two reviewers independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.

We used the ‘best fit’ framework method as a systematic and flexible approach to analyzing the qualitative data.[4648] Framework-based synthesis using the 'best fit' strategy is a highly pragmatic and useful approach for a range of policy urgent questions [49] whose use is supported in the development of clinical practice guidelines.[50] Framework synthesis is currently the most commonly used approach in a guideline process and is recommended when a question requires an understanding of complexity (see [50] for examples). Framework analysis is a five-stage process that includes familiarization with the data, identifying a thematic framework, indexing (applying the framework), charting and mapping, and interpretation.[51] Based on extensive team discussions, we selected the Risk and Vulnerability framework [52] due to its unique emphasis on structural factors, alongside biomedical and behavioural factors, that contribute to vulnerability and its stigma-informed approach. The Risk and Vulnerability framework identifies factors (causes of risk and vulnerability) and patient preferences that influence intervention accessibility, uptake, and acceptability. This framework additionally identifies biomedical, behavioural, and structural factors that act as enabling factors and influence corresponding causes of risk of and vulnerability to homelessness. A reviewer coded the data into the three domains of the Risk and Vulnerability framework, using a matrix spreadsheet to facilitate analysis; this was verified by a second reviewer (see Table 1). Mapping involved examining the concordant findings, disconformity data, and associations between themes. Interpretations were guided by our review objectives as well as the emerging themes. Mapping and interpretation were done through discussion with the entire review team.

We used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) tool [25,53] to assess the confidence of the key findings of this review. We defined a key finding as the analytic output (e.g., theme or factor) from our qualitative evidence synthesis that, based on data from primary studies, described the experiences of persons engaging with health and structural interventions that target homeless populations.[53] CERQual bases the evaluation on four criteria: the methodological limitations of the included studies that support a review finding, the relevance of the included studies to the review question, the coherence of the review findings, and the adequacy of the data that contributes to a review finding (See Table 2).

Results

Our systematic search identified 11,017 citations. After deduplication, we screened 10,247 articles by title and abstract, excluded 10,074 articles and considered 173 studies for a full-text review, based on the relevance of the subject. The full-text review excluded a further 113 studies, leaving 60 studies for review, which were then assessed for methodological quality. Low-quality studies were excluded, leaving 35 studies that met our inclusion criteria and quality standards. (See Figs 1 and 2: PRISMA and S7 File).

thumbnail
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram for original search up to 18th January 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226306.g001

thumbnail
Fig 2. PRISMA flow diagram for updated search up to 4th September 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226306.g002

Table 3 shows the characteristics of the included studies that are heterogeneous in terms of sample size, intervention, setting, and target populations. These studies represent the views of over 900 service users. Of the 35 included studies, 14 were conducted in Canada, 14 in the USA, 6 in the UK and 1 in Australia. Interventions included women-specific education and peer support, case management, place-based interventions for youth, non-abstinence-contingent supportive housing programs (e.g., Housing First), income assistance, needle-exchange services, and peer administration of naloxone. Target populations included youth, women, the elderly, men, mothers and families, and generalized populations who experienced homelessness and vulnerable housing. Table 3 presents the CASP summary of the methodological assessment (see also Appendix S6).

Using the Risk and Vulnerability framework (See Table 4), we did not identify any key findings that highlight biomedical factors that influence the acceptability of health and structural interventions. We identified 11 key findings at the behavioural and structural levels of the Risk and Vulnerability framework that influence the acceptability of services; these findings are described below. The GRADE-CERQual confidence in findings ranged from very low to moderate (see Table 5). Confidence levels were downgraded due to methodological limitations, heterogeneity in populations and interventions, and the coherence of the data.

We identified three key findings that influence intervention acceptability at the behavioural level:

Self-identity

Studies found that one’s sense of self may be challenged as they adapt to a life off the streets. Individuals with a history of homelessness found it challenging to give up the homeless identity/community. Many individuals who experienced homelessness had difficulty adapting to new environments and underwent an adjustment period to become accustomed to new structured communities and lifestyles,[68,72,77,79] for example, requiring several months to feel worthy of “walking on the sidewalks instead of in the back alleys.”[72] Youth, in particular, felt that shelter environments did not foster the development of young adults and found it particularly challenging to assimilate to the shelters’ institutional nature.[56] Others recognized the importance of rules and structure as essential elements for personal development.[67]

Autonomy

Participants felt that having a sense of autonomy while participating in programs improved their motivation to “do what it takes” to maintain positive outcomes. However, some participants felt a loss of autonomy when involved in programs due to their perception of providers’ patronizing attitudes.[65,72,79] For example, participants reported being “treated like kids”[79] and being “told what to do”.[65]

Pride

Mothers expressed feelings of pride when they observed positive changes in their children’s health and social outcomes after participating in maternal programs. They felt that family-oriented interventions allowed them to become effective mothers [54,66,71,82]: “It’s awesome because it makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing you know, that I’m being a good parent”.[54]

We identified eight key findings that influence intervention acceptability and accessibility at the structural level:

Personal safety

Stable housing and service programs created a sense of safety, security and stability for individuals with lived experience of homelessness, who often faced hardships in securing safe places for personal belongings and activities [26,56,63,67,68,72,73,76,79,85], “where you don’t have to watch your back all the time” [75]. Women, in particular, found that women-specific programs created safe spaces to engage with one another in an environment free from violence and trauma. Such programs promoted feelings of empowerment, self-efficacy, and enhanced self-esteem.[74,75]

Housing options

People who experienced homelessness or vulnerable housing often felt that the limited housing options did not address their personal needs and preferences, such as preferred neighbourhoods or housing with sufficient privacy, or were unattainable due to restrictive eligibility criteria.[55,56,58,60,72,80,86] Youth expressed interest in congregate housing models, as these promoted companionship and a sense of community and surrogate family with others in similar circumstances.[67,86] Women prioritized the safety of their children and expressed concerns regarding the safety of the neighbourhoods in which they lived.[72,82] Many women communicated a preference for integrated services within housing programs.[82]

Trust

Men and women of all ages with lived experience of homelessness valued being able to trust their service providers and others around them. They felt that once trust was established, a strong relationship could develop, and could facilitate relationship-building for others: “[…] as soon as a couple of them start to trust you, you start to get everyone else in the hostel to know you”.[57] However, male youth had more difficulty trusting providers and accessing services than other groups. [26,57,58,61,64,68,72,7982,8486]

Empowerment

Once trust was established, persons who experienced homelessness or vulnerable housing appreciated the pivotal role caseworkers played in providing them with tools to promote their empowerment and independence.[58,62,63,67,68,70,75,82,86] Quick connections to appropriate services may lead to rapid results, which some service users needed to see to sustain motivation to remain engaged.

Continuity of care

Many persons who experienced homelessness identified challenges in accessing care and maintaining adequate health when there were high turnover rates of service providers, thus resulting in a discontinuity of care. The transient nature of providers was detrimental to the ability of persons experiencing homelessness to seek out and utilize services. One participant said “Sometimes you need something solid in your life. Not knowing, especially for an addict… the unknown brings fear. It ends after three years. […]. it worries me a lot, the ‘after’ here”[79]. Youth, in particular, highlighted the need for stability, continuity and commitment by support workers. [55,56,58,62,64,66,70,77,79,80,82,86]

Peer support

Individuals participating in housing programs initially felt socially isolated but found that support from peers and staff with shared lived experience of marginalization allowed them to develop strong connections with and eventual feelings of altruism toward their peers.[58,60,62,67,68,72,76,84] The key relationships identified were with staff,[62,66,72,73,86] peers, [56,64,67,69,84] friends,[64] family,[54,66,69] people from their cultural community,[60,72] and the broader community.[67,72] These individuals also found that the peer support in youth- and women-specific programs was especially beneficial to the development of relationships and in enhancing one’s commitment to seek treatment and participate in programs.[26,54,56,64,67,69,73,84,87]

Gender constructs

Socially constructed gender roles (assigned to men and women, based on cultural beliefs, values, employment, and family role) were found to result in restricted access to programs.[65,66,74,75,84] For example, men faced difficulties in showing their vulnerability and in building trust, which inhibited their openness to accessing support services. Women reported restrictive relationships with men and family members, which limited their ability to take on roles other than as the mother/caretaker. However, in one study, women felt that their family role facilitated positive program outcomes.[74]

Mental health

Finally, studies highlighted that the intergenerational cycle of violence and poverty experienced by individuals who are vulnerably housed exacerbated their mental health problems and related stigma.[66,67,70] This was particularly prominent among women [54,75,82] and their children.[71] Youth, in particular, felt stigmatized for admitting to having mental health issues; this led to feelings of low self-worth and expectations of failure.[59,69,72,77,81,84] As participants gained insights into their mental illness, they acquired a sense of control over their own lives.[56,61,67,72,85,86]

Discussion

We found several behavioural and structural factors that influenced the acceptability of health and structural interventions, including permanent supportive housing, case management, income, interventions for substance use, and women- and youth-focused interventions, for persons who are homeless or vulnerably housed. We found that several behavioural and structural factors influenced the acceptability of these interventions. The included studies reported, with moderate confidence, that persons with lived experience of homelessness described recurrent experiences of marginalization, dehumanization, and exclusion, and that they highly valued trust and safety within human interactions. Other key findings with moderate confidence included the need for autonomy and support in relationships and that gender should be considered in intervention delivery. Trust and safety and the negative impacts of structural violence resonated across the studies. As the paradigm of safety expands to all settings within the healthcare continuum,[88] there is a need for anti-oppressive approaches (critically reflecting on the power structures such as systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism that impact patients’ lives) [89,90] that address structural violence. Primary care providers are uniquely positioned to provide, refer to, or advocate for health and structural interventions using the principles of trauma-informed care [91]

Trauma-informed care involves the following five principles: trauma awareness and acknowledgment; safety and trustworthiness; choice, control, and collaboration; strengths-based and skills-building care; and cultural, historical, and gender issues. The establishment of trust allows for the development of self-identity and small daily interactions that contribute to broader social connections.[9294] Furthermore, trust in healthcare practitioners improves the likelihood of persons experiencing homelessness or vulnerable housing seeking assistance and adhering to treatment.[95] Individuals who experienced homelessness and vulnerable housing preferred a continuity of services and a consistent/stable group of service providers/practitioners.[55,71] Additionally, supporting empowerment, [91] resilience and a sense of safety develops over time,[92] suggesting an important function for longitudinal strengths-based or skill-building roles, such as case management and peer support. Peers were a preferred avenue for support, given that persons with a shared lived experience of homelessness may understand each other and the challenges they face in navigating fragmented health and social systems. Persons with lived experience of homelessness valued a physically and emotionally safe setting for interventions. For example, mothers emphasized personal safety when securing adequate housing and services for themselves and for their children. Results from this review also showed that persons with lived experience valued having integrated services or a “one-stop shop” situation where various needs could be met and services could be coordinated.

Our review also shows that persons with lived experience of homelessness undergo a shift in self-identity. Primary care providers should remain open to personal and social identity and marginalization.[91] Many individuals who had experienced homelessness underwent an adjustment period to become accustomed to new structured communities and lifestyles.[68,72] A new living environment and community allowed for the reconfiguring of one’s identity.[72] In general, participants who maintained positive self-identities while homeless related more strongly to street culture and related peers.[72] The process of acculturation may have an impact on both their social and psychological well-being and can also promote health by creating access to previously inaccessible health and social services.[96] As persons with lived experience undergo a shift in their cultural values and beliefs, their self-perception, such as having competent parenting abilities, contributes to a positive self-identity; as a caregiver for example. Mothers who experienced homelessness and vulnerable housing expressed pride when they observed their children's’ positive changes in health and social outcomes, due to their participation in maternal programs.[54,66,71,82] Throughout our findings, pride was identified as an emotional attribute that was linked to pro-social behaviour.

Our results underscore the necessity of there being an intersectional approach that considers age and gender when developing interventions and services for people who experience homelessness.[97,98] Men and women have different experiences of homelessness,[99101] and these should be reflected in service provision and evaluation.[102,103] For instance, previous research has shown that homelessness or unstable housing among women can be harder to detect due to hesitancy in self-identifying as such due to the associated stigma.[104] Furthermore, trauma or severed social ties upon separation from an abusive partner can increase the risk of social isolation and emotional distress. Including equity-related considerations around sex, gender and diversity can increase the reach and impact of interventions; thus, enabling these interventions to better meet the diverse needs of homeless women and their families.

Similarly, age should also be considered when developing and delivering interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness.[105] For example, older adults who experience homelessness face challenges in terms of the continuity of case management and care,[80] while youth face the challenge of breaking the cycle of generational poverty and homelessness. Key challenges faced by youth include social isolation, alienation, low self-worth, lack of resources, and substance abuse.[84] Young people are drawn to providers who convey openness and acceptance, emphasize establishing trust, and instill hope.[86] The physical environment of shelters and housing services represents a structural barrier for youth, as they find it difficult to assimilate to the institutional nature of the shelter environment.[56] Furthermore, youth expressed a need for life-skills services, such as education, managing finances and obtaining housing, which would allow them to establish autonomy and meet their personal goals.

This systematic review offers a pragmatic response to time-critical projects [47] and the GRADE-CERQual approach assesses the confidence levels of the key findings. However, using secondary data is limited by the information provided in published primary studies. Furthermore, employing the ‘best-fit’ variant of framework analyses requires assurance that data is not forced into the a priori framework; rather new themes are created as needed. Using secondary data and ‘best fit’ strategies may be very helpful when policymakers, practitioners or other decision makers need answers quickly, and are able to tolerate some ambiguity about whether the answer is the very best that could be given [49]. The literature included in this qualitative analysis was restricted to seven intervention groups that were identified through a modified Delphi consensus process by both persons with lived experience of homelessness and recognized experts in the field; however, this approach may have missed relevant findings from studies examining other interventions. We also recognize the possibility that valuable insights may have been excluded from the synthesis through the exclusion of low-quality studies, an assessment process which is itself subjective and relies on varying levels of reporting standards. Finally, the exclusion of indigenous-specific interventions limits the applicability of these findings to this population.

The experiences among individuals who are homeless varies greatly; therefore, including persons with lived experience of homelessness in the development and implementation of interventions may help ensure that the needs of the community are met and will facilitate their sense of choice and control over their care. Incorporating their values and preferences is necessary to create appropriate and effective programs and interventions with greater chances of success in serving this population and in reducing health inequities. Key factors to be considered in the development of new programs include the behavioural and structural influences that dictate service acquisition and adherence. Current and future primary care and public health interventions should be developed and implemented with particular attention paid to the factors relevant to transitions in care identified in this review, such as trust, personal safety, and the continuity of care. However, it should be noted that there exists challenges in commissioning services, instituting changes in service provision, and the development of specific care pathways for persons experiencing homelessness when public services are subject to austerity measures. This review’s findings contribute to biomedical and healthcare strategies (e.g., harm-reduction strategies); educational and behavioural strategies (e.g., counselling and referral services); environmental strategies that support and facilitate behaviour change; and policy and legislative strategies (e.g., related to poverty, social housing, law enforcement) [106]. Establishing a trusting relationship at first contact with service providers and primary care practitioners is the foundation for positive outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ayesha Ratnayake (University of Ottawa) for her contributions and expertise.

References

  1. 1. UN Human Rights Council. Adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/270
  2. 2. Stuckler D, Reeves A, Loopstra R, Karanikolos M, McKee M. Austerity and health: the impact in the UK and Europe. Eur J Public Health [Internet]. 2017 Oct;27(suppl_4):18–21. Available from: 10.1093/eurpub/ckx167 pmid:29028245
  3. 3. Duffield B, Lovell P. The Economic Crisis Hits Home: The Unfolding Increase in Child & Youth Homelessness [Internet]. Minneapolis; 2008. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540733
  4. 4. Fondeville N, Applica TW. Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. 2011 Nov
  5. 5. Council UNHR. Access to justice for the right to housing [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/007/29/PDF/G1900729.pdf?OpenElement
  6. 6. Fazel S, Khosla V, Doll H, Geddes J. The Prevalence of Mental Disorders among the Homeless in Western Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. PLoS medicine. 2008 Dec 2;5(12):e225
  7. 7. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet. 2014;384(9953):1529–40. pmid:25390578
  8. 8. Geddes J, Fazel S. Extreme health inequalities: Mortality in homeless people. Vol. 377, Lancet. 2011. 2156–2157 p. pmid:21676455
  9. 9. UN Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context [A/HRC/37/53]. [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.placetocallhome.ca/pdfs/consultations/Report-of-the-Special-Rapporteur-Leilana-Farha-EN.pdf
  10. 10. Farmer P. An Anthropology of Structural Violence. Curr Anthropol [Internet]. 2004 Jun;45(3):305–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/382250
  11. 11. Farmer PE, Nizeye B, Stulac S, Keshavjee S. Structural Violence and Clinical Medicine. PLOS Med [Internet]. 2006 Oct;3(10):e449. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030449 pmid:17076568
  12. 12. Milaney K, Lockerbie SL, Fang XY, Ramage K. The role of structural violence in family homelessness. Can J public Heal. 2019;1–9.
  13. 13. People I of M (US). C on HC for H. Homelessness, health, and human needs. National Academies; 1988.
  14. 14. White R. 4 ways that not having an address is keeping people homeless [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Oct 10]. Available from: https://wearecitizensadvice.org.uk/4-ways-that-not-having-an-address-is-keeping-people-homeless-8b9dded1cb2b
  15. 15. Pinto AD, Bloch G. Framework for building primary care capacity to address the social determinants of health. Can Fam Physician. 2017;63(11):e476–82. pmid:29138172
  16. 16. Andermann A. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ. 2016;188(17–18):E474–83. pmid:27503870
  17. 17. Luchenski S, Maguire N, Aldridge RW, Hayward A, Story A, Perri P, et al. What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations. Lancet. 2018;391(10117):266–80. pmid:29137868
  18. 18. Kirmayer LJ, Narasiah L, Munoz M, Rashid M, Ryder AG, Guzder J, et al. Common mental health problems in immigrants and refugees: general approach in primary care. Cmaj. 2011;183(12):E959–67. pmid:20603342
  19. 19. Kirmayer LJ, Pedersen D. Toward a new architecture for global mental health. Transcult Psychiatry [Internet]. 2014 Oct;51(6):759–76. Available from: 10.1177/1363461514557202 pmid:25358524
  20. 20. Arya N, Piggott T. Under-Served: Health Determinants of Indigenous, Inner-City, and Migrant Populations in Canada. Canadian Scholars’ Press; 2018. 390 p.
  21. 21. NICE. Public Health Guideline (PH49): Behaviour change: individual approaches [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph49
  22. 22. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000 Sep;321(7262):694–6. pmid:10987780
  23. 23. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008 Sep;337:a1655. pmid:18824488
  24. 24. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ Br Med J. 2015 Mar;350:h1258.
  25. 25. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLOS Med [Internet]. 2015 Oct;12(10):e1001895. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 pmid:26506244
  26. 26. Yamin S, Aubry T, Volk J, Jetté J, Bourque J, Crouse S. Peer Supportive Housing for Consumers of Housing First Who Experience Ongoing Housing Instability. Can J Community Ment Heal [Internet]. 2014 Dec;33(4):61–76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2014-034
  27. 27. Ponka D, Agbata E, Kendall C, Stergiopoulos V, Mendoca O, Magwood O, et al. The Effectiveness of Case Management Interventions for the Homeless and Vulnerably Housed: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. submitted.
  28. 28. Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, Beder M, Kendall C, Kpade V, Daghmach W. The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons who use substances: An overview of systematic reviews. Submitted.
  29. 29. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2017;17(1):88. Available from: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 pmid:28126032
  30. 30. Shoemaker E, Kendall C, Mathew C, Crispo S, Welch V, Andermann A, et al. Establishing need and population priorities to improve the health of homeless and vulnerably housed women, youth, and men: a Delphi consensus study. Submitted.
  31. 31. Wang J, Mott S, Magwood O, Mathew C, Mclellan A, Kpade V, et al. The impact of interventions for homeless youth on housing, mental health, substance use, and family cohesion: A systematic review with narrative synthesis. submitted.
  32. 32. Mathew C, Mott S, Kendall C. A Gender-based Analysis of a Systematic Review of Interventions for Homeless and Vulnerably Housed Women. submitted.
  33. 33. Aubry T, Bloch G, Brcic V, Saad A, Magwood A, Abdalla T, et al. The Effectiveness of Permanent Supportive Housing and Income Assistance Interventions for Homeless, Vulnearbly Housed, and Persons with Lived Experience of Homelessness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Submitted.
  34. 34. Magwood O, Gebremeskel A, Ymele Leki V, Kpade V, Saad A, Alkhateeb Q, et al. The experiences of homeless and vulnerably housed persons around health and social services. A protcol for a systematic review of qualitative studies. Cochrane Equity Methods Gr [Internet]. 2018; Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/sites/methods.cochrane.org.equity/files/public/uploads/protocol_the_experiences_of_homeless_and_vulnerably_housed_persons_around_health_and_social_services.pdf
  35. 35. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1).
  36. 36. Atkins S, Launiala A, Kagaha A, Smith H. Including mixed methods research in systematic reviews: Examples from qualitative syntheses in TB and malaria control. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):62.
  37. 37. Gaetz S, Barr C, Friesen A, Harris B, Pauly B, Pearce B, et al. Canadian Definition of Homelessness [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/canadian-definition-homelessness
  38. 38. The World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
  39. 39. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016 Dec;5(1):210. pmid:27919275
  40. 40. CASP U. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
  41. 41. Butler A, Hall H, Copnell B. A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs [Internet]. 2016 Jun;13(3):241–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12134
  42. 42. Joo JY, Liu M F. Experiences of case management with chronic illnesses: a qualitative systematic review. International Nursing Review. 2018.
  43. 43. Wood E, Ohlsen S, Ricketts T. What are the barriers and facilitators to implementing Collaborative Care for depression? A systematic review. J Affect Disord [Internet]. 2017;214:26–43. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032716315506 pmid:28266319
  44. 44. Allen C, Vassilev I, Kennedy A, Rogers A. Long-Term Condition Self-Management Support in Online Communities: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Papers. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2016 Mar;18(3):e61—e61. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26965990 pmid:26965990
  45. 45. Hannes K. Cochrane Handbook. In: Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; Available from: http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance
  46. 46. Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):37.
  47. 47. Booth A, Carroll C. How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of “best fit” framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(11):700–8. pmid:26306609
  48. 48. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2013;13(1):117. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
  49. 49. Dixon-Woods M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011;9(1):39.
  50. 50. Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Heal. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000882.
  51. 51. Spencer L, Ritchie J. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In: Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994.
  52. 52. UNAIDS. Combination HIV Prevention: Tailoring and Coordinating Biomedical, Behavioural and Structural Strategies to Reduce New HIV Infections [Internet]. Geneva; 2010. Available from: http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2007_Combination_Prevention_paper_en_0.pdf
  53. 53. Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: Introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018;13. pmid:29384081
  54. 54. Alhusen JL, Norris-Shortle C, Cosgrove K, Marks L. “I’m opening my arms rather than pushing away”: Perceived benefits of a mindfulness-based intervention among homeless women and young children. Infant Ment Health J [Internet]. 2017 May;38(3):434–42. Available from: 10.1002/imhj.21641 pmid:28464306
  55. 55. Archard P, Murphy D. A practice research study concerning homeless service user involvement with a programme of social support work delivered in a specialized psychological trauma service. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs [Internet]. 2015 Aug;22(6):360–70. Available from: 10.1111/jpm.12229 pmid:26177734
  56. 56. Aviles A, Helfrich C. Life Skill Service Needs: Perspectives of Homeless Youth. J Youth Adolesc [Internet]. 2004;33(4):331–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000032641.82942.22
  57. 57. Barker SL, Maguire N, Bishop FL, Stopa L. Peer support critical elements and experiences in supporting the homeless: a qualitative study. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2018;28(4):213–29.
  58. 58. Canham SL, Wister A, O’Dea E. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats to Housing First in Metro Vancouver: RUNNING HEAD: STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSNESS, OPPORTUNITIES. Eval Program Plann. 2019;
  59. 59. Chaturvedi S. Accessing psychological therapies: Homeless young people’s views on barriers and facilitators. Couns Psychother Res [Internet]. 2016 Mar;16(1):54–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12058
  60. 60. Collins E, Clifasefi S, Andrasik M. Exploring Transitions Within a Project-based Housing First Setting: Qualitative Evaluation and Practice Implications. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(4):1678–97. pmid:23698682
  61. 61. Cormack J. Counselling marginalised young people: A qualitative analysis of young homeless people’s views of counselling. Couns Psychother Res [Internet]. 2009 Jun;9(2):71–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140902823755
  62. 62. Davis E, Tamayo A, Fernandez A. “Because Somebody Cared about Me. That’s How It Changed Things”: Homeless, Chronically Ill Patients’ Perspectives on Case Management. PLoS One [Internet]. 2012 Sep;7(9):e45980. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045980 pmid:23029350
  63. 63. A Farquhar S, Ryder M, Henderlong D, Lowe R, Amann T. Listening to Consumer Perspectives to Inform Addictions and Housing-Related Practice and Research. Vol. 5, Global journal of community psychology practice. 2014. 1–14 p.
  64. 64. Ferguson KM, Islam N. Conceptualizing Outcomes with Street-living Young Adults: Grounded Theory Approach to Evaluating the Social Enterprise Intervention. Qual Soc Work [Internet]. 2008 Jun;7(2):217–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325008089631
  65. 65. Guilcher SJT, Hamilton-Wright S, Skinner W, Woodhall-Melnik J, Ferentzy P, Wendaferew A, et al. “Talk with me”: perspectives on services for men with problem gambling and housing instability. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2016 Aug;16(a):340. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27485610 pmid:27485610
  66. 66. Gültekin L, Brush BL, Baiardi JM, Kirk K, VanMaldeghem K. Voices From the Street: Exploring the Realities of Family Homelessness. J Fam Nurs [Internet]. 2014 Sep;20(4):390–414. Available from: 10.1177/1074840714548943 pmid:25186947
  67. 67. Holtschneider C. A part of something: The importance of transitional living programs within a Housing First framework for youth experiencing homelessness. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2016;65:204–15. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740916301219
  68. 68. Jost JJ, Levitt AJ, Porcu L. Street to home: the experiences of long-term unsheltered homeless individuals in an outreach and housing placement program. Qual Soc Work. 2011;10(2):244–63.
  69. 69. Kozloff N, Cheung AH, Ross LE, Winer H, Ierfino D, Bullock H, et al. Factors Influencing Service Use Among Homeless Youths With Co-Occurring Disorders. Psychiatr Serv [Internet]. 2013 Sep;64(9):925–8. Available from: 10.1176/appi.ps.201200257 pmid:24026839
  70. 70. Lamanna D, Stergiopoulos V, Durbin J, O’campo P, Poremski D, Tepper J. Promoting continuity of care for homeless adults with unmet health needs: The role of brief interventions. Health Soc Care Community. 2018;26(1):56–64. pmid:28569397
  71. 71. Lorelle S, Grothaus T. Homeless Children and Their Families’ Perspectives of Agency Services. Community Ment Health J. 2015 Oct;51(7):800–8. pmid:25618168
  72. 72. Macnaughton E, Townley G, Nelson G, Caplan R, Macleod T, Polvere L, et al. How does Housing First catalyze recovery?: Qualitative findings from a Canadian multi-site randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil [Internet]. 2016 Apr;19(2):136–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487768.2016.1162759
  73. 73. Macneil J, Pauly B. Needle exchange as a safe haven in an unsafe World. Vol. 30, Drug and alcohol review. 2011. 26–32 p. pmid:21219494
  74. 74. Magee C, Huriaux E. Ladies’ night: Evaluating a drop-in programme for homeless and marginally housed women in San Francisco’s mission district. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2008;19(2):113–21. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395907002459 pmid:18313280
  75. 75. McMaster R, Lopez V, Kornhaber R, Cleary M. A Qualitative Study of a Maintenance Support Program for Women at Risk of Homelessness: Part 2: Situational Factors. Issues Ment Health Nurs [Internet]. 2017 Jun;38(6):506–12. Available from: 10.1080/01612840.2017.1292571 pmid:28350481
  76. 76. Mitchell K, Durante s, Pellatt K, Richardson C, Mathias S, Buxton J. Naloxone and the Inner City Youth Experience (NICYE): A community-based participatory research study examining young people’s perceptions of the BC take home naloxone program. Vol. 14, Harm Reduction Journal. 2017.
  77. 77. Patterson ML, Rezansoff S, Currie L, Somers JM. Trajectories of recovery among homeless adults with mental illness who participated in a randomised controlled trial of Housing First: a longitudinal, narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2013 Sep;3(9):e003442. pmid:24022392
  78. 78. Patterson M, Currie L, Rezansoff S, Somers J. Exiting Homelessness: Perceived Changes, Barriers, and Facilitators Among Formerly Homeless Adults With Mental Disorders. Vol. 38, Psychiatric rehabilitation journal. 2014.
  79. 79. Perreault M, Milton D, Komaroff J, Lévesque G-P, Perron C, Wong K. Resident perspectives on a Montreal peer-run housing project for opioid users. J Subst Use [Internet]. 2016 Jul;21(4):355–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2015.1029022
  80. 80. Ploeg J, Hayward L, Woodward C, Johnston R. A case study of a Canadian homelessness intervention programme for elderly people. Heal Soc Care Community. 2008;16(6):593–605.
  81. 81. Poremski D, Whitley R, Latimer E. Building Trust With People Receiving Supported Employment and Housing First Services. Vol. 39, Psychiatric rehabilitation journal. 2015.
  82. 82. Quinn K, Young S, Thomas D, Baldwin B, Paul M. The role of supportive housing for HIV-positive mothers and their children. Vol. 41, Journal of Social Service Research. 2015.
  83. 83. Radey M, Wilkins B. Short-Term Employment Services for Homeless Individuals: Perceptions from Stakeholders in a Community Partnership. J Soc Serv Res [Internet]. 2010 Dec;37(1):19–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.524513
  84. 84. Stewart M, Reutter L, Letourneau N, Makwarimba E, Hungler K. Supporting Homeless Youth: Perspectives and Preferences. J Poverty [Internet]. 2010 Apr;14(2):145–65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10875541003711631
  85. 85. Taylor HC, Stuttaford MC, Broad B, Vostanis P. Listening to service users: young homeless people’s experiences of a new mental health service. J Child Heal Care [Internet]. 2007 Sep;11(3):221–30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493507079568
  86. 86. Thompson SJ, McManus H, Lantry J, Windsor L, Flynn P. Insights from the street: Perceptions of services and providers by homeless young adults. Eval Program Plann [Internet]. 2006;29(1):34–43. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718905000844
  87. 87. Wright N, Oldham N, Francis K, Jones L. Homeless drug users’ awareness and risk perception of peer “Take Home Naloxone” use–a qualitative study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy [Internet]. 2006;1(1):28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-1-28
  88. 88. Lark ME, Kirkpatrick K, Chung KC. Patient Safety Movement: History and Future Directions. J Hand Surg Am [Internet]. 2018;43(2):174–8. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363502317303507 pmid:29421067
  89. 89. Veltman A, La Rose T. Anti-oppressive approach to assessment. In: On-Call Geriatric Psychiatry. Springer; 2016. p. 55–62.
  90. 90. Larson G. Anti-oppressive practice in mental health. J Progress Hum Serv. 2008;19(1):39–54.
  91. 91. Purkey E, Patel R, Phillips SP. Trauma-informed care: better care for everyone. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64(3):170–2. pmid:29540379
  92. 92. Giddens A. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age [Internet]. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1991. 264 p. Available from: http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2660
  93. 93. Snow DA, Anderson L. Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. Am J Sociol. 1987;92(6):1336–71.
  94. 94. Scanlon C, Adlam J. Refusal, social exclusion and the cycle of rejection: a Cynical analysis? Crit Soc Policy. 2008;28(4):529–49.
  95. 95. Thom DH, Hall MA, Pawlson LG. Measuring Patients’ Trust In Physicians When Assessing Quality Of Care. Health Aff [Internet]. 2004 Jul;23(4):124–32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.4.124
  96. 96. Palinkas LA, Pickwell SM. Acculturation as a risk factor for chronic disease among Cambodian refugees in the United States. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 1995;40(12):1643–53. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027795369400344S pmid:7660177
  97. 97. Hankivsky O. Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: Implications of intersectionality. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 2012;74(11):1712–20. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612000408 pmid:22361090
  98. 98. Tannenbaum C, Greaves L, Graham ID. Why sex and gender matter in implementation research. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2016;16(1):145. Available from: 10.1186/s12874-016-0247-7 pmid:27788671
  99. 99. Hagen J. Gender and Homelessness. Vol. 32, Social Work. 1987.
  100. 100. Rich AR, Clark C. Gender differences in response to homelessness services. Eval Program Plann [Internet]. 2005;28(1):69–81. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718904000813
  101. 101. Calsyn R, Morse G. Homeless men and women: commonalities and a service gender gap. Am J Community Psychol [Internet]. 1990;18(4):597–608. Available from: https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/homeless-men-and-women-commonalities-and-service-gender-gap pmid:2075894
  102. 102. Doull M, Runnels V, Tudiver S. Sex and Gender in Systematic Reviews Planning Tool [Internet]. Cochrane Equity Methods. 2011. Available from: http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.equity/files/public/uploads/SRTool_PlanningVersionSHORTFINAL.pdf
  103. 103. Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev [Internet]. 2016;1(1):2. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6
  104. 104. Reeve K. Women and homelessness: putting gender back on the agenda. Vol. 11, People, Place and Policy Online. 2018. 165–174 p.
  105. 105. Tompsett CJ, Fowler PJ, Toro PA. Age Differences Among Homeless Individuals: Adolescence Through Adulthood. J Prev Interv Community [Internet]. 2009 Apr;37(2):86–99. Available from: 10.1080/10852350902735551pmid:19363770
  106. 106. Frankish CJ, Hwang SW, Quantz D. Homelessness and health in Canada: research lessons and priorities. Can J Public Health. 2005;96 Suppl 2:S23–9.