ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Forensic supportive housing programs: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Forensic supportive housing programs: a scoping review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Forensic supportive housing (FSH) aims to support community reintegration and recovery of forensic psychiatric patients, while managing community risks. Although FSH is critical to the recovery process, the literature on FSH models and their outcomes is scant. A registered scoping review was undertaken to identify the models and outcomes of FSH internationally, and identify research gaps. Methods: Seven academic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, Ebsco CINAHL, Ebsco Criminal Justice Abstracts, ProQuest) were searched, in addition to backward and forward citation searching. FSH models (program philosophy; support components and staffing composition) and their outcomes (e.g., re-hospitalization; re-offending; housing placement; well-being and quality of life) were examined. Results: A total of 4,084 articles were initially screened. Following full-text review of 82 articles, and citation searching, a total of 18 articles were included in the review. Most studies were descriptive. The program models identified varied in aims, program philosophy, and staffing models. Although most studies were uncontrolled, existing evidence suggests that FSH can support successful community tenures, and reduce risk of re-offending. Relationships with staff and fellow residents, along with opportunities to cultivate practical skills and self-efficacy, were identified as contributors to resident satisfaction in FSH. However, concerns of trans-institutionalization and limited resident autonomy and choice around housing options were identified in some settings, highlighting the need for greater attention to these programs. Conclusion: Research on FSH, an essential support for the successful community reintegration of forensic patients, is limited. Although existing literature highlights promising health, housing, and justice outcomes associated with FSH settings, more research is needed to establish best practices and support mental health recovery and safeguard the human rights of this 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.