Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33041411›Full record

ArticleChildren and youth services review2020

Provider perspectives of housing programs for young adults experiencing homelessness.

Sara Semborski, Brian Redline, Harmony Rhoades, Benjamin Henwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children and youth services review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sara SemborskiUniversity of Southern California.
Brian RedlineUniversity of Southern California.
Harmony RhoadesUniversity of Southern California.
Benjamin HenwoodUniversity of Southern California.

Funding

Understanding HIV Risk Environment for Youth in Supportive HousingR01MH110206 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI HENWOOD, BENJAMIN FOSTER · 2016 to 2018
$1.8M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH110206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveQualitative methods were used to investigate the perspectives of service providers working in Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Living Programs, and Rapid Rehousing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. The primary aim was to explore how housing models were designed, implemented, and the extent to which there is variability in how providers approach their work with young adults.

methodsData come from 26 housing service providers purposively sampled from supportive housing providers across the United States between October 2017 and July 2018. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a comparative case summary approach, grouped by program model.

resultsThree themes emerged from the qualitative analysis related to how specific housing models were developed ( DISCUSSION: While the overarching goals of supportive housing span across housing models, the methods and philosophies of service delivery differ, mirroring the programmatic structure of the model. Results point to a competing philosophies approach to housing as it delivers different philosophically oriented programming models for similar youth through Transitional Living Programs, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing models.

Indexed as

Homeless ServicesHomeless youthHousing FirstService ProvisionSupportive Housing

Identifiers

PMID33041411
PMCPMC7543879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.