↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of a Housing First adaptation for ethnic minority groups: findings of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of a Housing First adaptation for ethnic minority groups: findings of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3768-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vicky Stergiopoulos, Agnes Gozdzik, Vachan Misir, Anna Skosireva, Aseefa Sarang, Jo Connelly, Adam Whisler, Kwame McKenzie

Abstract

Little is known about the effectiveness of Housing First (HF) among ethnic minority groups, despite its growing popularity for homeless adults experiencing mental illness. This randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness of a HF program using rent supplements and intensive case management, enhanced by anti-racism and anti-oppression practices for homeless adults with mental illness from diverse ethnic minority backgrounds. This unblinded pragmatic field trial was carried out in community settings in Toronto, Canada. Participants were 237 adults from ethnic minority groups experiencing mental illness and homelessness, who met study criteria for moderate needs for mental health services. Participants were randomized to either adapted HF (n = 135) or usual care (n = 102) and followed every 3 months for 24 months. The primary study outcome was housing stability; secondary outcomes included physical and mental health, social functioning, quality of life, arrests and health service use. Intention to treat statistical analyses examined the effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. During the 24-month study period, HF participants were stably housed a significantly greater proportion of time compared to usual care participants, 75 % (95 % CI 70 to 81) vs. 41 % (95 % CI 35 to 48), respectively, for a difference of 34 %, 95 % CI 25 to 43. HF also led to improvements in community integration over the course of the study: the change in the mean difference between treatment groups from baseline to 24-months was significantly greater among HF participants compared to those in usual care (change in mean difference = 2.2, 95 % CI 0.06 to 4.3). Baseline diagnosis of psychosis was associated with reduced likelihood of being housed ≥ 50 % of the study period (OR = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.18 to 0.72). Housing First enhanced with anti-racism and anti-oppression practices can improve housing stability and community functioning among ethnically diverse homeless adults with mental illness. International Standard Randomized Control Trial Number Register Identifier: ISRCTN42520374 , assigned August 18, 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 36 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 16%
Psychology 22 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 41 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,251,378
of 21,343,339 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,603
of 13,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,638
of 315,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#411
of 865 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 865 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.