ArticleBJGP open2025
Staff and service user perspectives of a co-located homelessness centre in Scotland: a mixed-methods evaluation.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
backgroundCo-location and integration of services within a psychologically informed environment (PIE) is recommended for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) but there are few examples of this in the UK. Such a centre opened in Edinburgh, Scotland in November 2021.
aimTo evaluate progress of the new centre. DESIGN &
settingThis was a mixed-methods pre-post-test design study before (baseline) and 2 years after (follow-up) the move to the new co-located centre. The study took place in Edinburgh, Scotland. The baseline evaluation was conducted at two separate homelessness services and the follow-up evaluation at the new co-located centre.
methodBaseline and follow-up staff surveys measured knowledge of trauma-informed care (TIC), wellbeing, team climate, and job satisfaction. The follow-up staff survey also evaluated staff support and service improvements. In-depth staff interviews were conducted at baseline (
resultsThe staff survey showed significant improvements between baseline and follow-up in TIC, burnout, and team climate, together with improvements in support, service integration, and service-user care. Service users reported high satisfaction with the new centre. Staff interviews identified a more PIE, better staff support, and improved opportunistic multidisciplinary working over the 2 years of the centre opening. However, a number of barriers were also identified relating to the building and the IT systems. Further work on the centre's vision, short and long-term integration plans, workload, and sustainability were felt to be needed.
conclusionCo-location of services for PEH in Scotland has led to reductions in staff burnout and improvements in team climate and service users' satisfaction over the first 2 years of opening. However, barriers remain and full integration requires a clearer vision and 'roadmap', requiring collaborative leadership and sustainable funding.
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.