ArticlePloS one2026
Policy interventions to improve health through housing: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite decades of research documenting the effects of poor housing on health, there is much less evidence of the effectiveness of different housing interventions to improve health outcomes. Moreover, existing research tends to focus on a specific population group or aspect of housing. This scoping review aimed to identify the range of policy instruments and interventions that could improve health by improving housing quality, stability, affordability and availability, with a focus on interventions being implemented in practice, including those not published in the academic literature. For each intervention, we documented aims, effects, actor roles, cost, housing domain, target population, city and country. Based on 37 evidence reviews and reports, we identified 327 unique interventions, with economic and social regulation (e.g., regulating pricing and private rented sector practices, changing planning processes) and direct or contracted provision (e.g., providing and upgrading social housing) much more common than other policy instruments. Evidence on effectiveness varied considerably, with more outcomes reported for physical modifications, economic regulation and tax policy, and limited evidence on social housing, public information, social regulation, effects on health outcomes and measures along multiple stages of a change pathway. Thirty-two types of actors were involved in authorising, financing, implementing and/or enforcing interventions, spanning public and private sectors and levels of government. Intervention costs were infrequently stated and varied substantially, with multiple reviews noting the mismatch between those who finance, implement, benefit and save. This scoping review uncovered more interventions and a wider range of policy instruments than identified in previous systematic reviews, suggesting an important and underutilised role for the grey literature in identifying existing programmes and highlighting evidence gaps. Taking advantage of these natural experiments, embedding more robust evaluation into current interventions and comparing the effectiveness of different policies that aim to achieve similar outcomes offer the opportunity for research to better inform housing policy and maximise its potential to improve health.
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.