在 COVID-19 大流行期间,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县的分散式或基于地方的永久性支持性住房安置情况。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1007/s10488-024-01359-1
Benjamin F Henwood, Randall Kuhn, Amanda Landrian Gonzalez, Jessie Chien, Yue Tu, Ricky Bluthenthal, Michael Cousineau, Howard Padwa, Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Melissa Chinchilla, Bikki Tran Smith, Lillian Gelberg
{"title":"在 COVID-19 大流行期间,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县的分散式或基于地方的永久性支持性住房安置情况。","authors":"Benjamin F Henwood, Randall Kuhn, Amanda Landrian Gonzalez, Jessie Chien, Yue Tu, Ricky Bluthenthal, Michael Cousineau, Howard Padwa, Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Melissa Chinchilla, Bikki Tran Smith, Lillian Gelberg","doi":"10.1007/s10488-024-01359-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are two dominant approaches to implementing permanent supportive housing (PSH), namely place-based (PB) and scattered-site (SS). Formal guidance does not distinguish between these two models and only specifies that PSH should be reserved for those who are most vulnerable with complex health needs. To consider both system- and self-selection factors that may affect housing assignment, this study applied the Gelberg-Anderson behavioral model for vulnerable populations to compare predisposing, enabling, and need factors among people experiencing homelessness (PE) by whether they were assigned to PB-PSH (n = 272) or SS-PSH (n = 185) in Los Angeles County during the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory, observational study also included those who were approved but did not receive PSH (n = 94). Results show that there are notable differences between (a) those who received PSH versus those who did not, and (b) those in PB-PSH versus SS-PSH. Specifically, PEH who received PSH were more likely to be white, US-born, have any physical health condition, and have lower health activation scores. PEH who received PB- versus SS-PSH were more likely to be older, Black, have any alcohol use disorder, and have higher health activation scores. These findings suggest that homeless service systems may consider PB-PSH more appropriate for PEH with higher needs but also raises important questions about how race may be a factor in the type of PSH that PEH receive and whether PSH is received at all.</p>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11379792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Placement into Scattered-Site or Place-Based Permanent Supportive Housing in Los Angeles County, CA, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin F Henwood, Randall Kuhn, Amanda Landrian Gonzalez, Jessie Chien, Yue Tu, Ricky Bluthenthal, Michael Cousineau, Howard Padwa, Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Melissa Chinchilla, Bikki Tran Smith, Lillian Gelberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10488-024-01359-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There are two dominant approaches to implementing permanent supportive housing (PSH), namely place-based (PB) and scattered-site (SS). Formal guidance does not distinguish between these two models and only specifies that PSH should be reserved for those who are most vulnerable with complex health needs. To consider both system- and self-selection factors that may affect housing assignment, this study applied the Gelberg-Anderson behavioral model for vulnerable populations to compare predisposing, enabling, and need factors among people experiencing homelessness (PE) by whether they were assigned to PB-PSH (n = 272) or SS-PSH (n = 185) in Los Angeles County during the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory, observational study also included those who were approved but did not receive PSH (n = 94). Results show that there are notable differences between (a) those who received PSH versus those who did not, and (b) those in PB-PSH versus SS-PSH. Specifically, PEH who received PSH were more likely to be white, US-born, have any physical health condition, and have lower health activation scores. PEH who received PB- versus SS-PSH were more likely to be older, Black, have any alcohol use disorder, and have higher health activation scores. These findings suggest that homeless service systems may consider PB-PSH more appropriate for PEH with higher needs but also raises important questions about how race may be a factor in the type of PSH that PEH receive and whether PSH is received at all.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11379792/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-024-01359-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-024-01359-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在实施永久性支持住房(PSH)方面,有两种主要方法,即基于场所(PB)和分散场所(SS)。正式指南并没有区分这两种模式,只是规定永久支持性住房应保留给那些有复杂健康需求的最弱势人群。为了考虑可能影响住房分配的系统因素和自我选择因素,本研究采用了针对弱势群体的 Gelberg-Anderson 行为模型,根据 COVID-19 大流行期间洛杉矶县无家可归者(PE)是否被分配到 PB-PSH(n = 272)或 SS-PSH(n = 185),比较了他们的倾向因素、有利因素和需求因素。这项探索性观察研究还包括那些获得批准但未接受 PSH 的人员(n = 94)。结果显示,(a) 接受 PSH 的人与未接受 PSH 的人之间,以及 (b) PB-PSH 与 SS-PSH 的人之间存在明显差异。具体而言,接受 PSH 的 PEH 更有可能是白人、在美国出生、有任何身体健康问题、健康激活得分较低。而接受 PB-PSH 和 SS-PSH 的 PEH 更有可能是老年人、黑人、有酗酒障碍,并且健康激活得分更高。这些研究结果表明,无家可归者服务系统可能会认为 "PB-PSH "更适合需求较高的无家可归者,但同时也提出了一些重要问题,即种族可能是影响无家可归者接受 "PSH "类型以及是否接受 "PSH "的一个因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Placement into Scattered-Site or Place-Based Permanent Supportive Housing in Los Angeles County, CA, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

There are two dominant approaches to implementing permanent supportive housing (PSH), namely place-based (PB) and scattered-site (SS). Formal guidance does not distinguish between these two models and only specifies that PSH should be reserved for those who are most vulnerable with complex health needs. To consider both system- and self-selection factors that may affect housing assignment, this study applied the Gelberg-Anderson behavioral model for vulnerable populations to compare predisposing, enabling, and need factors among people experiencing homelessness (PE) by whether they were assigned to PB-PSH (n = 272) or SS-PSH (n = 185) in Los Angeles County during the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory, observational study also included those who were approved but did not receive PSH (n = 94). Results show that there are notable differences between (a) those who received PSH versus those who did not, and (b) those in PB-PSH versus SS-PSH. Specifically, PEH who received PSH were more likely to be white, US-born, have any physical health condition, and have lower health activation scores. PEH who received PB- versus SS-PSH were more likely to be older, Black, have any alcohol use disorder, and have higher health activation scores. These findings suggest that homeless service systems may consider PB-PSH more appropriate for PEH with higher needs but also raises important questions about how race may be a factor in the type of PSH that PEH receive and whether PSH is received at all.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
期刊最新文献
The Importance of Patient Experience in Obtaining Mental Health Care at HRSA-Funded Health Centers. Outcomes that Matter to Youth and Families in Behavioral Health Services. "So Many Other Things Improve" with Transdiagnostic Treatment for Sleep and Circadian Problems: Interviews with Community Providers on Treating Clients with Serious Mental Illness. Patients' and Therapists' Experiences of Standardized Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Needs for a Personalized Approach. A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes Regarding Personalized Provider Selection and Patient-Therapist Matching.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1