Search results

Housing First (HF) is an evidence-based practice effective in reducing homelessness among those who experience chronic homelessness. However, a strong synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of this intervention is lacking for people who use drugs. The purpose of this study is to explore international literature databases to identify the effectiveness of the HF programme among people who use drugs.

A modified framework from Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was used, namely: identifying the research question; developing inclusion and exclusion criteria; identifying relevant studies for study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarising and reporting the results.

Three main themes were identified: substance use related outcomes, housing-related outcomes and social outcomes. There is strong evidence that HF increases housing retention and reduces homelessness among chronically homeless people who use drugs. However, literature relating to substance use and social outcomes for this population report mixed and inconclusive findings.

This scoping review concludes that additional research is required to conclusively determine whether HF is an effective intervention for homeless substance users. Future researchers must use formal assessments of substance use and ensure clear reporting of the HF intervention is accomplished. It is recommended for researchers and policymakers to consider the specific needs of the people who use drugs before implementation of HF for this population.

Differential effectiveness of HF through diagnostic subgroups such as alcohol use and drug use is varied with alcohol use being found to decrease due to the HF programme, but findings relating to other drug use outcomes are varied. As most previous studies used the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) to measure substance use among participants, however, the ASI, a self-reporting measure has unstable criterion validity and can cause under or over reporting of substance use. Structured toxicology or diagnostic assessments of substance use must be used for research instead to assist researchers in making firm conclusions about the reported rates.

The slightly poorer housing outcomes among people who use substances indicate that this group may need more intensive approaches to finding and maintaining housing. Additional services for the group that address comorbid problems and consequences relating to substance use are required. It is suggested that housing should be provided within an integrated model that offers additional support services such as case management as when well matched to clients, case management appears to be an effective intervention among homeless sub-populations, as it reduces substance use, improves quality of life and health outcomes, improves social connectedness and increases housing tenure and satisfaction.

This scoping review concludes that additional research is required to conclusively determine whether HF is an effective intervention for homeless substance users. Future researchers must use formal assessments of substance use and ensure clear reporting of the HF intervention is accomplished. It is recommended for researchers and policymakers to consider the specific needs of the people who use drugs before HF implementation for this population.

Globally, hepatitis C treatment uptake is lower among people who are homeless or unstably housed compared to those who are housed. Understanding and addressing this is essential to ensure no one is left behind in hepatitis C elimination efforts. This study aims to explore peoples’ experiences of unstable housing and health care, and how these experiences influenced engagement in hepatitis C treatment.

Purposive sampling was used to recruit people with lived experience of injection drug use, hepatitis C and unstable housing in Melbourne, Australia. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted and a case study approach with interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to identify personal experiential themes and group experiential themes.

Four people were interviewed. The precarious nature of housing for women who inject drugs was a group experiential theme, however, this did not appear to be a direct barrier to hepatitis C treatment. Rather, competing priorities, including caregiving, were personal experiential themes and these created barriers to treatment. Another group experiential theme was “right place, right time, right people” with these three elements required to facilitate hepatitis C treatment.

There is limited research providing in-depth insight into how personal experiences with unstable housing and health care shape engagement with hepatitis C treatment. The analyses indicate there is a need to move beyond a “one size fits-all” approach to hepatitis C care. Instead, care should be tailored to the needs of individuals and their personal circumstances and regularly facilitated. This includes giving greater attention to gender in intervention design and evaluation, and research more broadly.

The current academic publishing model, in which researchers rely significantly on multinational publishing companies to disseminate their work, has implications for knowledge enterprise both in terms of knowledge production and distribution. This study aims to provide a critical reflection on the academic publishing model and how it works, particularly in light of the rise of open access publishing and the growing analytics focus of publishing companies and discusses the impact on knowledge equity.

This exploratory essay offers a critical analysis of the impact of the current academic publishing model on research practices. The discussion provides a foundation for the argument that knowledge equity is essential to social justice.

To effectively fulfil the transformative aims of the interdisciplinary research community within social and environmental accounting, it is imperative to establish equitable access to published research.

This essay opens space for discussion of the current publishing model, given its dominance of the knowledge enterprise. It outlines some of the implications of this model for knowledge equity and suggests strategies for fostering a more inclusive and accessible dissemination of scholarly work.

The purpose of this paper is to expand on some of the points made in Ken Merchant's paper (this issue) in connection with the research‐practice gap.

Aiming to be provocative for the purpose of evoking further discussion, this commentary adopts the perspective that some deeply rooted misconceptions about the nature and production of scientific knowledge underpin the research‐practice gap.

There are three key findings. First, contrary to popular belief, practical knowledge does not simply derive from basic (“scientific”) knowledge “trickling down” to practice; instead, basic knowledge needs to be transformed into a theory or phronesis of management accounting in a manner that reflects the context and purpose of organizations. Practical knowledge therefore becomes a distinct and rigorous mode of knowing in its own right, no less important than basic knowledge. Second, the adoption of field research or the case study method may be the only way to overcome all of the dimensions associated with the “data problem” existing in management accounting. Finally, a strong argument can be made to suggest that the research‐practice gap and its epistemological underpinnings not only impede the discipline's ability to carve out its own unique intellectual identity (Malmi and Granlund), but they also explain the discipline's inability to produce a cumulative body of knowledge.

The paper suggests that a key step, among others, in addressing the researcher‐practitioner gap is the need to overcome philosophical misconceptions about the nature and production of scientific knowledge. This perspective has not received significant coverage in accounting.

Drawing on sociolinguistics, this chapter proposes an encoding–decoding perspective on evaluation, conceptualizing codes as interpretive schemas that are encoded by firms and decoded by audiences. A key element in this process is code complexity, denoting combinations of interdependent elements. We demonstrate that the evaluation of code complexity depends on the type of audience (professionals and laypersons) and the type of complexity (technological and aesthetic). We analyze the attribution of awards by professionals and the public in luxury watchmaking, featuring three mechanisms: the social embeddedness of audiences, their motivation for evaluation and supply-and-demand matching. The results attest to significant differences in the evaluation of technological and aesthetic code complexity by professionals and laypersons. There is a premium attributed to aesthetic code complexity by professionals and a premium attributed to technological complexity by laypersons. Finding the right type and level of code complexity to pursue in their offerings is a key strategic challenge for producers.

The formulated proposals for this legal principle in the trade battern of the European Community have again appeared in the EEC draft Directive. It has been many years in coming, indicating the extreme difficulties encountered in bringing some sort of harmony in the different laws of Member‐states including those of the United Kingdom, relating to the subject. Over the years there were periods of what appeared to be complete inactivity, when no progress was being made, when consultations were at a stand‐still, but the situation was closely monitored by manufacturers of goods, including food and drink, in the UK and the BFJ published fairly detailed reviews of proposals being considered — in 1979 and 1981; and even as recently as the last few months — in “Consumerism in the Community”, the subject was briefly discussed.