Observational studyBMC psychiatry2024
Independent Supported Housing vs institutional housing rehabilitation settings for non-homeless individuals with severe mental illness - longitudinal results from an observational study.
Observational study in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03815604 (Independent Housing and Support for People With Severe Mental Illness), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Independent Housing and Support for People With Severe Mental Illness: Randomized Controlled Trial vs. Observational Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) strongly prefer independent living over living in an institution. Independent Supported Housing (ISH) provides housing rehabilitation for persons with SMI in their accommodations. However, most individuals who need housing rehabilitation live in institutional housing settings (housing rehabilitation as usual: HAU). We investigated which housing rehabilitation setting is effective on which variable in the long term to support service users to form an informed preference for either housing rehabilitation setting.
methodsWe conducted a two-year longitudinal observational non-inferiority study to test the effectiveness of ISH in improving participants' social inclusion, quality of life, emotional social support, capabilities, symptom severity, functioning, service utilisation and costs. Participants were assessed at baseline and after six, twelve, and 24 months. Mixed effects models were computed to test between-group and within-group effects.
resultsThe study included 83 participants in ISH (n = 31) and HAU (n = 52) housing rehabilitation settings with a mean age of 36.2 years. Most participants were male (64%) and had a primary psychotic or schizophrenic (35%) or an affective diagnosis (24%). During the study, ISH participants significantly improved their quality of life (β = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.82), symptoms (β = -0.32; 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.03), and capabilities (β = 4.46; 95% CI: 0.14 to 8.77) and decreased psychiatric hospitalisations (p = 0.04). HAU participants improved their quality of life (β = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.69). Housing and rehabilitation support costs were almost half with ISH than with HAU.
conclusionISH has been shown to be much less expensive than HAU and was associated with several improvements like reduced psychiatric hospitalisations and improved quality of life. Therefore, our findings strongly argue for a preference-driven provision of housing rehabilitation services and to end the institutionalisation of persons with SMI.
trial registrationThe study was registered on December 04, 2018, at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03815604).
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.