ArticleBMC public health2025
COVID-19 response and the unhoused communities in Sacramento: a mixed methods study with policy implications.
Article in BMC public health, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn an emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cross-sector public health collaborations facilitated emergency hotel room placements for people experiencing homelessness (PEH). To inform a Health-in-All-Policies approach to future disasters, the study objective was to assess the impact of the disaster response on the unhoused communities surrounding Sacramento.
methodsOur interdisciplinary team-based convergent parallel mixed methods study included quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, followed by integrated analyses. The quantitative primary outcome was number of self-reported primary care physician visits. Semi-structured in-person interviews focused on perspectives of the COVID-19 pandemic and public health interventions, experiences with healthcare access and preventative measures, and personal priorities. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. Integration was guided by the "following a thread" approach.
resultsWe surveyed 100 people living outdoors ("outside PEH") and 100 people in temporary hotel room placements ("hotel PEH"), and we conducted and transcribed interviews with 19 outside PEH and 16 hotel PEH for qualitative thematic analysis. Hotel PEH reported significantly more primary care physician visits compared to outside PEH (p < 0.05). Mobile health clinics were viewed favorably by both outside PEH (93%) and hotel PEH (85%). Four qualitative themes emerged: (1) Access to resources; (2) Social connection as empowerment; (3) Exacerbation of pre-existing conditions; and (4) Impact of systems and policy on safety. Integrated comparison demonstrated that hotel placements improved access to information, healthcare, resources, hygiene, hope, and safety. This informed four disaster response guidelines: (1) Prioritize housing; (2) Maintain safe and healthy living environments; (3) Improve health and access to integrated healthcare services; and (4) Promote social and emotional well-being.
conclusionsComprehensive disaster responses require understanding vulnerable populations' experiences, perspectives, and priorities. Student-led team science addresses complex questions, revealing pandemic response lessons and informing Health-in-All-Policies approaches to ongoing and future disasters.
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.