Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols

Date Submitted: May 3, 2019
Date Accepted: Oct 22, 2019
Date Submitted to PubMed: Feb 5, 2020

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Comparison of Housing First and Traditional Homeless Service Users in Eight European Countries: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Multi-Site Study

Greenwood R, Manning RM, O'Shaughnessy BR, Cross O, Vargas-Moniz MJ, Auquier P, Santinello M, Wolf JR, Bokszczanin A, Kallmen H

Comparison of Housing First and Traditional Homeless Service Users in Eight European Countries: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Multi-Site Study

JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9(2):e14584

DOI: 10.2196/14584

PMID: 32022696

PMCID: 7055843

The Home-EU Service Users’ Study Protocol: A Comparison of Housing First and Traditional Homeless Service Users in Eight European Countries

  • Ronni Greenwood; 
  • Rachel M. Manning; 
  • Branagh R. O'Shaughnessy; 
  • Oisin Cross; 
  • Maria J. Vargas-Moniz; 
  • Pascal Auquier; 
  • Massimo Santinello; 
  • Judith R. Wolf; 
  • Anna Bokszczanin; 
  • Hakan Kallmen

ABSTRACT

Background:

Homeless services expend considerable resources to provide for service users’ most basic needs such as food and shelter, but their track-record for ending homelessness is disappointing. An alternative model, Housing First, reversed the order of services so that homeless individuals are offered immediate access to independent housing, with wraparound supports but no treatment or abstinence requirements. Although the evidence-base for Housing First’s effectiveness in ending homelessness is robust, less is known about its effectiveness in promoting recovery.

Objective:

The objective of this research is to compare outcomes of homeless services uses engaged in either Housing First or traditional staircase services in eight European countries: France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

Methods:

A multi-method, multi-site investigation of Housing First and traditional services will compare quantitative outcomes at two time points. Key rehabilitation outcomes include stable housing and psychiatric symptoms. Key growth outcomes include community integration and acquired capabilities. Semi-structured interviews will examine service users’ experiences of environmental constraints and affordances on acquired capabilities to identify features of homeless services that enhance service users’ capabilities sets.

Results:

Multi-level modelling (MLM) will be used to test for group differences (Housing First versus traditional services) on key outcome variables. Thematic analysis will be used to understand the ways in which service users make sense of internal and external affordances and constraints on capabilities.

Conclusions:

will use findings from this research to formulate recommendations about the configuration of homeless services and the scaling up and scaling out of HF programs. From our findings we will draw conclusions about the setting features that promote individuals’ exits from homelessness, rehabilitation, and recovery. Clinical Trial: H2020-SC6-REVINEQUAL-2016/ GA726997


 Citation

Please cite as:

Greenwood R, Manning RM, O'Shaughnessy BR, Cross O, Vargas-Moniz MJ, Auquier P, Santinello M, Wolf JR, Bokszczanin A, Kallmen H

Comparison of Housing First and Traditional Homeless Service Users in Eight European Countries: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Multi-Site Study

JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9(2):e14584

DOI: 10.2196/14584

PMID: 32022696

PMCID: 7055843

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.