ArticleThe journal of primary prevention2019
Understanding Wait Times in Rapid Re-Housing Among Homeless Youth: A Competing Risk Survival Analysis.
Article in The journal of primary prevention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Housing interventions for emerging adults experiencing homelessness: A scoping review.Children and youth services review · 2021Article
- Provider perspectives of housing programs for young adults experiencing homelessness.Children and youth services review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approximately 3.5 million youth experience homelessness in the United States. Assisting youth to exit homelessness as quickly as possible through various housing venues aims to prevent adverse health impacts that prolonged homeless experiences may have on youth. Rapid re-housing (RRH) is a recent, short-term, less costly housing option than permanent supportive housing that provides temporary housing supports and services to counter homelessness. Although previous literature indicates that youth are likely to achieve stable homelessness exits via RRH, the duration of wait times for youth and potential disparities in RRH waiting periods remain unclear. We used administrative data from 16 communities across the United States (N = 10,920) to gain a greater understanding about RRH wait times among homeless youth. In addition, we adopted a competing risk survival analysis to investigate potential disparities (i.e., race and ethnicity, gender, rurality, sexual orientation, and previous homelessness condition) in RRH wait times while taking into consideration the presence of other homelessness exit options (e.g., permanent supportive housing). Study results indicate that RRH is a common homelessness exit for homeless youth and is prioritized for youth assessed as mid-vulnerability, per commonly accepted assessment measures of youth vulnerability. However, youth who received RRH waited, on average, 131 days following their housing eligibility assessment. Furthermore, being a minor (i.e., 17 years old or younger), experiencing homelessness in rural communities, and lower engagement in homeless services (e.g., emergency shelters and transitional living programs) were all associated with lower probability of exiting into RRH over time, taking into account the possibility of other competing homelessness exits. Expansion of the short-term housing supports offered through RRH may be a promising strategy to counter homelessness among youth in a timely manner. However, such an expansion should also address the potential disparities underlying youths' wait time to receive RRH in order to reduce prolonged homelessness experiences within this vulnerable population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.