Search results

This study aims to examine the emotional and cognitive responses of frontline homelessness service support staff to the highly insecure attachment styles (AS) exhibited by people experiencing multiple exclusion homelessness (MEH), that is, a combination of homelessness and other forms of deep social exclusion.

Focus groups were conducted with frontline staff (N = 19) in four homelessness support services in Scotland. Hypothetical case vignettes depicting four insecure AS (enmeshed, fearful, withdrawn and angry-dismissive) were used to facilitate discussions. Data is analysed thematically.

Service users with AS characterised by high anxiety (enmeshed or fearful) often evoked feelings of compassion in staff. Their openness to accepting help led to more effective interactions between staff and service users. However, the high ambivalence and at times overdependence associated with these AS placed staff at risk of study-related stress and exhaustion. Avoidant service users (withdrawn or angry-dismissive) evoked feelings of frustration in staff. Their high need for self-reliance and defensive attitudes were experienced as hostile and dismissing. This often led to job dissatisfaction and acted as a barrier to staff engagement, leaving this group more likely to “fall through the net” of support.

Existing literature describes challenges that support staff encounter when attempting to engage with people experiencing MEH, but provides little insight into the causes or consequences of “difficult” interactions. This study suggests that an attachment-informed approach to care can promote more constructive engagement between staff and service users in the homelessness sector.

Homelessness is a colossal issue, precipitated by a wide array of social determinants, and mirrored in substantial health disparities and a revolving hospital door. Connecting people to safe and secure housing needs to be part of the health system response. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This mixed-methods paper presents emerging findings from the collaboration between an inner city hospital, a specialist homeless medicine GP service and Western Australia’s inaugural Housing First collective impact project (50 Lives 50 Homes) in Perth. This paper draws on data from hospitals, homelessness community services and general practice.

This collaboration has facilitated hospital identification and referral of vulnerable rough sleepers to the Housing First project, and connected those housed to a GP and after hours nursing support. For a cohort (n=44) housed now for at least 12 months, significant reductions in hospital use and associated costs were observed.

While the observed reductions in hospital use in the year following housing are based on a small cohort, this data and the case studies presented demonstrate the power of care coordinated across hospital and community in this complex cohort.

This model of collaboration between a hospital and a Housing First project can not only improve discharge outcomes and re-admission in the shorter term, but can also contribute to ending homelessness which is itself, a social determinant of poor health.

Coordinated care between hospitals and programmes to house people who are homeless can significantly reduce hospital use and healthcare costs, and provides hospitals with the opportunity to contribute to more systemic solutions to ending homelessness.

This study aims to co-develop a Frailty, Health and Care Needs Assessment (FHCNA) questionnaire for people experiencing homelessness and explore the feasibility of its use by non-clinical staff in homeless hostels.

The FHCNA, aimed at identifying frailty and other health and care priorities for people experiencing homelessness, was co-designed in workshops (online and in person) with homelessness and inclusion health staff. Its feasibility was tested by staff and their clients in two hostels, with pre- and post-study focus groups held with hostel staff to gain input and feedback.

The FHCNA was co-developed and then used to collect 74 pairs of resident and key worker inputted data (62% of eligible hostel residents). The mean age of clients was 48 years (range 22–82 years). High levels of unmet need were identified. Over half (53%) were identified as frail. Common concerns included difficulty walking (46%), frequent falls (43%), chronic pain (36%), mental health issues (57%) and dental concerns (50%). In total, 59% of clients reported difficulty in performing at least one basic activity of daily living, while only 14% had undergone a Care Act Assessment. Hostel staff found using the FHCNA to be feasible, acceptable and potentially useful in facilitating explorations of met and unmet health and social care needs of hostel clients. By identifying unmet needs, the FHCNA has the potential to support staff to advocate for access to health and social care support.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to co-develop and feasibility test a questionnaire for use by non-clinically trained staff to identify frailty and other health and care needs of people experiencing homelessness in a hostel setting.

The purpose of this paper is to assess frailty, geriatric conditions and multimorbidity in people experiencing homelessness (PEH) using holistic evaluations based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and draw comparisons with general population survey data.

Cross-sectional observational study conducted in a London-based hostel for single PEH over 30 years old in March–April 2019. The participants and key workers completed health-related questionnaires, and geriatric conditions were identified using standardised assessments. Frailty was defined according to five criteria in Fried’s phenotype model and multimorbidity as the presence of two or more long-term conditions (LTCs). Comparisons with the general population were made using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and the Health Survey for England.

A total of 33 people participated with a mean age of 55.7 years (range 38–74). Frailty was identified in 55% and pre-frailty in 39%. Participants met an average of 2.6/5 frailty criteria, comparable to 89-year-olds in the general population. The most common geriatric conditions were: falls (in 61%), visual impairment (61%), low grip strength (61%), mobility impairment (52%) and cognitive impairment (45%). All participants had multimorbidity. The average of 7.2 LTCs (range 2–14) per study participant far exceeds the average for even the oldest people in the general population.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first UK-based study measuring frailty and geriatric conditions in PEH and the first anywhere to do so within a CGA-type evaluation. It also demonstrates the feasibility of conducting holistic evaluations in this setting, which may be used clinically to improve the health outcomes for PEH.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the denial of social support to homeless persons and related societal effects of new local governance arrangements.

Analysis of new data and secondary evaluative and comparative data on the policies, administrative structures and management styles of Copenhagen, Glasgow and Amsterdam have brought better understanding of the elements of local governance arrangements that influence the number of homeless persons who are denied access to services and the number of persons sleeping rough who are not eligible for social support. Theoretical explanations for the impact of governance arrangements on these processes and societal effects are considered.

It appears that while the body of research, reports and policy documents on non-eligibility for homelessness services is growing, legal responses at best remain vague, and policies are still in the process of being developed. Modest progress on policy goals, and even more so on policy instruments, leading to less detrimental outcomes, can be explained by centralising and decentralising trends and the relationships between state and society. The latter may also be indicative of how the increased focus on the legal problems of some EU migrants can be explained.

The two points in time documented for the case studies are relevant in understanding processes underlying the current circumstances of homeless persons and homeless migrants and offer an interdisciplinary insight into governance and politics, law, and public and health service perspectives.

Good policy practice, as this paper shows, can lead to a difference in individual lives.

Much is unknown about considerations inside government. This paper contributes by combining theoretical and insider perspectives.

This study aims to explore homeless-support workers’ perceptions of homeless welfare recipients and their experiences of navigating new conditions placed upon them by UK welfare reform. It examines support workers’ views of the most punitive feature of the welfare system, sanctions, on those recipients.In 2012, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government introduced the largest and most radical overhaul of the UK benefit system, significantly increasing the level of conditionality and sanctions for non-compliance, part of a shift in welfare, suggesting that rights must be balanced by responsibility and the “culture of worklessness” and “benefit dependency” should be addressed.

Welfare reforms in the UK and the increased use of sanctions as part of welfare conditionality are reviewed. Data are collected from eight semi-structured interviews taking place in five housing support groups in the South East and South West of England in 2019–2020. The interviews followed an approach from interpretive phenomenological analysis.

Findings from this study indicate that the government’s reforms serve as a disciplinary measure for the poor, reinforcing inequality and social marginalization. To mitigate the effects would require a comprehensive review of universal credit prior to its full rollout to claimants. Data are analyzed thematically.

Welfare conditionality and welfare reform is well-researched in the UK. There is also a significant volume of research concerning homelessness. This paper, however, fills a gap in research concerning the experiences of those working in housing support agencies working with homeless people in the UK.

Health disparities affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) populations have been reported in many countries. For Singapore, no large quantitative studies on mental health and well-being in the local LGBTQ community have been published. The authors conducted a community-based survey (National LGBT Census Singapore, 2013; NLCS2013) that covered a comprehensive set of demographic, social and health indicators. Here, the authors investigated mental health status and its correlates in 2,350 LGBTQ individuals within the NLCS2013 sample.

The NLCS2013 was an anonymous online survey conducted amongst self-identified LGBTQ adults (aged ≥ 21 years) residing in Singapore. The survey included the World Health Organisation Well-being Index (WHO-5) as a measure of mental well-being, with low WHO 5 scores (<13/25) indicating poor mental well-being. The authors analysed relationships between low WHO-5 score and a range of respondent characteristics using multivariate logistic regression.

Strikingly, 40.9% of 2,350 respondents analysed had low WHO-5 scores, indicating poor mental well-being. Parental non-acceptance, experience of conflict at home and bullying/discrimination in the workplace or educational environments were all significantly associated with poor mental well-being. Conversely, community participation appeared protective for mental well-being, as respondents who participated in LGBTQ community organisations or events were less likely to have poor mental well-being than non-participants.

The NLCS2013 represents one of the first broad-based efforts to comprehensively and quantitatively capture the sociodemographic and health profile, including mental health status, within Singapore’s resident LGBTQ population. These findings affirm the need to address the mental health needs of LGBTQ individuals in Singapore and to foster safe spaces and allyship.