Experiences of homelessness and serious mental illness (SMI) negatively impact health and receipt of healthcare. Interventions that promote the use of primary care services for people with both SMI and homelessness may improve health outcomes, but this literature has not been evaluated systematically. This evidence map examines the breadth of literature to describe what intervention strategies have been studied for this population, elements of primary care integration with other services used, and the level of intervention complexity to highlight gaps for future intervention research and program development.
We followed an a priori protocol developed in collaboration with clinical stakeholders. We systematically searched the published literature to identify interventions for adults with homelessness who also had SMI. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. Data abstraction methods followed standard practice. Data were categorized into intervention strategies and primary care integration strategies. Then we applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize intervention complexity.
Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria evaluating 15 unique interventions to promote engagement in primary care for adults with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Study designs varied widely from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to single-site program evaluations. Intervention strategies varied across studies but primarily targeted patients directly (e.g., health education, evidence-based interactions such as motivational interviewing) with fewer strategies employed at the clinic (e.g., employee training, multidisciplinary teams) or system levels (e.g., data sharing). We identified elements of primary care integration, including referral strategies, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning. Interventions displayed notable complexity around the number of intervention components, interaction between intervention components, and extent to which interventions were tailored to specific patient populations.
We identified and categorized elements used in various combinations to address the primary care needs of individuals with experiences of homeless and SMI.
Adults who have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity have higher rates of chronic illness, ED utilization rates,1,2 and early mortality compared with those who have not.3,4,5 Mental health burden is also high in this population as 20–25% of people who experience homelessness in the USA also have diagnosed serious mental illness (SMI).6,7 Mental and behavioral health disorders further threaten housing stability8 which impedes engagement in healthcare.9,10 The intersection of homelessness and SMI amplifies barriers to engaging in traditional, clinic-based primary care, including stigma within the health system11 and prioritization of basic needs above other health concerns.12 As a result, adults with SMI and experiences of homelessness receive less preventive care and chronic disease management and are more likely to obtain healthcare in emergency departments.13 Identifying feasible approaches to integrate primary care and community-based services for this population could improve chronic disease management and general health.
Interventions have been developed to address barriers to primary care engagement for populations with housing instability or SMI14 and improve continuity of care, use of primary and mental healthcare,15,16,17 and housing outcomes.18,19 However, most interventions for this population focus on either SMI or homelessness; few interventions address the intersection of both vulnerabilities.15,16,20,21,21 Furthermore, there have been no systematic examinations of the literature which evaluates interventions that include strategies to promote engagement in primary care for populations with SMI and homelessness. We conducted an evidence map to systematically examine the literature, categorize intervention strategies, evaluate intervention complexity, and determine the elements of integration between primary care and other services. We also review gaps in the evidence-base to identify future research needed to improve health care engagement and health outcomes for this population.22.
This work was part of a Veterans Health Administration (VHA)–funded report available online (www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp). An evidence map “is a systematic search of a broad field to identify gaps in knowledge and/or future research needs that presents results in a user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database.”23 We followed a standard, a priori developed protocol that was posted online (https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/in_progress.cfm) and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines where applicable for an evidence map (i.e., we did not evaluate the risk of bias assessment or define effect measures).24.
Table 1 presents definitions that guided this study. An expert medical librarian conducted a primary search of the literature from database inception through May 15, 2020, in MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), EMBASE (via Elsevier), and PsycINFO (via Ovid®). We used a combination of database-specific subject headings and keywords (e.g., homelessness, primary care, veterans) to search titles and abstracts (Supplement A). No limits were placed on date or language. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. We hand-searched references cited by previous systematic reviews conducted on this topic for potential inclusion.
Studies identified through our primary search were classified independently by 2 investigators based on a priori eligibility criteria (Table 2) (all authors). Citations classified for inclusion by at least 1 investigator were reviewed at the full-text level. The citations designated for exclusion by 1 investigator at the title-and-abstract level underwent screening by a second investigator. If both investigators agreed on exclusion, the study was excluded (Supplement B). All articles meeting eligibility criteria at full-text review were included for data abstraction.
Data from included studies were abstracted into a customized DistillerSR database by 1 reviewer and over-read by a second reviewer. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. We treated multiple publications from a single study as a single data point. Data abstraction forms are included in Supplement C. When critical data were missing or unclear in published reports, we requested supplemental data from the study authors.
A subgroup of authors (KMG, MSB, CD, JRD) collated and organized a list of previously described strategies used in primary care engagement interventions for patients with experiences of homelessness (e.g., outreach, case management, team-based care).20,21 Strategies were categorized by level of intended action (e.g., patient, clinic, system) and domains that were similar from a service delivery perspective (e.g., education/training, communication, outreach) (Fig. 1; Appendix Table 1). Working in pairs, subgroup members added strategies identified during a targeted review of intervention descriptions and iteratively reconciled differences; then, we met as a large group to finalize decisions. Recognizing that the same intervention strategy can be used to promote service engagement across sectors (e.g., primary care and specialty care), the strategies identified were not restricted to those pertaining to primary care engagement only, but included all strategies that attempted to meet the intersectional needs of this population within the context of an intervention that in some way promoted engagement with primary care. Study characteristic details are in Supplement D. Supplement B lists studies at the full-text review stage and the reason for exclusion.
In addition to identifying and grouping intervention strategies that promoted primary care engagement, we also sought to characterize the degree of primary care integration with other services within a given intervention (Table 3). Included studies did not provide sufficient information to apply existing primary care and mental health integration frameworks that categorize interventions along an integration continuum.25,26 Therefore, we identified elements of integrated primary care mental health practice from these tools and catalogued the presence or absence of each element across the included studies: standard referral (e.g., non-specific referral to primary care), enhanced referral (e.g., established relationships with primary care providers with whom there is a degree of interactive communication), co-location (e.g., primary care is co-located in same physical space as other disciplines), and interdisciplinary care planning (e.g., regular interdisciplinary care planning for individual patients). Finally, two investigators (KMG, MSB) applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize the complexity of included interventions.27 Complexity is determined on a relative continuum from 1 (least complex) to 3 (most complex) (Fig. 2 for details).
First, we provide an overview of the studies identified. Next, we provide details about the interventions described by those studies, including ACCESS and non-ACCESS programs. Then, we describe the intervention strategies categorized at the patient, clinic, and system levels and elements of primary care integration. Finally, we discuss the findings about intervention complexity.
We identified 22 articles that represented 15 unique interventions that included some element of support for primary care engagement for patients with experiences with homelessness and SMI (Fig. 3). Studies were conducted in Canada (n = 4) and the USA (n = 18). Two studies were conducted within the VA. Seven of the 22 articles describe the Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Support (ACCESS) demonstration project and the remaining articles describe other unique interventions. For more details about sample characteristics, see Supplement D. Study Characteristics Tables.
Studies Conducted Within the ACCESS Program
ACCESS was an 18-site federal demonstration program initiated in 1993 and funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services.28,29,30,31,32,33,34 ACCESS tested the effectiveness of systems integration strategies to support patients with experiences of homelessness and mental illness. ACCESS sites were provided funding to adopt system integration strategies that were tailored to their local context. Individual participants at ACCESS sites were required to be experiencing homelessness (had spent at least 7 of the past 14 nights in a shelter, outdoors, or in a public or abandoned building); have a severe mental illness (psychiatric eligibility was determined with a 30-item screening algorithm); and not be involved in ongoing mental health treatment.
Seven publications evaluated different aspects of the ACCESS multi-site comparative program evaluation and included reference to primary care as a component of system integration (Supplement D).28,29,30,31,32,33,34 These publications were published between 1997 and 2008 and examined outcomes at the patient level (e.g., physical and mental health status, healthcare utilization), clinic level (e.g., patient referrals), and system level (e.g., agency linkages and system coordination). One study compared the impact of patient gender on program outcomes.28,31.
Studies Conducted Outside the ACCESS Program
Fifteen articles conducted described 14 interventions with elements of primary care engagement for individuals with SMI experiencing homelessness (Supplement D).35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48 Study designs included cohort studies (n = 435,42,44,46), program evaluations (n = 438,45,47,48), controlled before-after studies (n = 240,43), RCTs (n = 237,39), a cross-sectional study (n = 141), and a qualitative study (n = 136).
Within the 15 interventions, we identified 22 patient-level, 4 clinic-level, and 5 system-level strategies. Four studies included strategies at all 3 levels,37,38,40,45 and 1 study included strategies on 1 level.44 All studies used at least 2 patient-level strategies, and the total number of strategies described ranged from 2 to 11. Figure 4 shows the frequency of intervention strategies by level and domain.
Patient-Level Intervention Strategy Domains
Patient-level intervention strategies were organized into 6 domains (i.e., education/training, evidence-based patient interactions, outreach, clinical/case management, structural/material supports, low barrier clinic approaches). The most frequently described patient-level strategies were health education (5 studies), motivational interviewing (5 studies), interdisciplinary intake (7 studies), service navigation (6 studies), and material assistance for housing (9 studies) (Appendix Table 1). Interdisciplinary needs assessment and service navigation typically emphasized the uptake of services based on enhanced referral pathways to community-based organizations, social services, or specialized medical services. Additionally, 14 studies featured material supports by providing housing, access to technology, income assistance, or food assistance programs.29,30,32,34,36,37,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,48 Eleven studies incorporated evidence-based therapies or interactions to improve patient-provider collaboration as an intervention component.29,30,34,35,36,37,38,39,42,47,48 The most frequently described of these techniques were motivational interviewing (5 studies) and empathic/stigma reducing communication (4 studies). Five studies included health education, often emphasizing chronic disease self-management, navigating the healthcare system, and partnering with the care team, and social support.36,37,38,39,40,42,48 Additionally, 4 studies included crisis intervention as an available mechanism for a short-term intensive response.29,38,47,48 Baker et al. describe a nurse practitioner-driven program that offered crisis services as a strategy to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations, incarceration, or a return to homelessness.38 Finally, 7 studies described strategies to facilitate uptake of medical services by reducing clinic barriers,34,36,38,40,41,43,45 including reducing eligibility requirements (e.g., no requirements for sobriety or substance use treatment to participate), reducing wait times, appointment prioritization, and embedding the clinic location within the target community. Interventions often combined strategies to enhance effectiveness. For example, Kelly et al. describe how health education, case management, and patient/provider communication techniques were delivered together as a multi-component self-management intervention.37.
Clinic-Level Intervention Strategy Domains
All included studies used a clinic-level intervention strategy (Appendix Table 2). The most frequently described clinic-level strategy was population-specific employee training (n = 9 studies). Most studies also leveraged a multidisciplinary team structure through interdisciplinary intervention staffing and established relationships with collaborative agencies to supplement internal resources (Appendix Table 2). Nine studies (12 articles, 4 of which were ACCESS) included training beyond what is required for discipline-specific licensure.28,29,31,33,37,38,39,40,42,43,47,48 Training and workforce development strategies focused on skills and techniques tailored to the complex patient population. For example, the Jefferson Department of Family and Community Medicine and a Housing First agency, Pathways to Housing-PA, formed a partnership to serve patients with experiences of homelessness and SMI and required a homeless health training rotation to develop skills specific to this population.41 Training and workforce development strategies were often linked to intervention strategies at the system or patient/delivery level. An illustrative example is “cross training” for programs in the ACCESS study that emphasized system integration to ensure personnel were familiar with services and procedures from partnering agencies to fully leverage service agreements that facilitated coordination and collaboration.28,29,30,31,32,33,34.
System-Level Intervention Strategy Domains
Intervention strategies employed at the system level sought to improve multi-sector coordination, information exchange, and evaluation. The most frequently described system-level intervention components included shared electronic health records (n = 4) and proactive patient monitoring technology infrastructure (n = 3) (Appendix Table 3). Proactive monitoring systems promoted interagency collaboration by improving communication, documentation, and care management. Kelly et al. evaluated a peer-delivered health navigator model that used an electronic personal health record to reduce challenges related to paper record keeping.37,49 ACCESS established system integration strategies across sites ranging from community and information sharing to full-service delivery integration. For example, 3 ACCESS evaluations included interagency collaboration, joint funding for interagency initiatives, and the reduction of regulatory barriers through special waivers as system-level strategies.29,30,31 Finally, we found 2 studies that reported using shared, standardized performance metrics to evaluate effectiveness across agencies and clinics.41,46.
Elements of Primary Care Integration
We considered the elements of integration between primary care and the other services (e.g., standard referral, enhanced referral, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning) across each included study (Fig. 5 and Table 3). We found a relatively even distribution of the 4 key elements across studies. Four studies included evidence of both co-location and regular interdisciplinary care planning,40,41,42,43 while 1 study employed interdisciplinary care planning but primary care was not co-located.36 For example, McGuire et al. reported on a VA-based integrated clinic in which homeless Veterans presenting to a housing program screening clinic were seen same-day by a specially trained, co-located primary care team.43 Three studies describe models in which primary care was co-located but there was no clear reporting that interdisciplinary care planning took place.35,45,46 Six studies employed enhanced referral mechanisms to connect patients with primary care.35,38,41,44,46,47 Baker et al. demonstrated an enhanced referral process as part of a psychiatric/mental health NP-run, independent community health center which cared for individuals who were homeless or had experiences with homelessness due to SMI; they maintained a “robust referral system” and regular contact to primary care within local major healthcare systems.38 Four studies used a standard referral process to connect patients with primary care based on typical consult mechanisms guided by insurance networks and without the benefit of established interactive relationships.37,39,40,48 Some studies used multiple routes to connect patients with primary care; for example, a Philadelphia-based program embedded a primary care provider from a nearby academic family and community medicine department into an existing Housing First care management team as part of an integrated care program.
We evaluated the complexity of included interventions using the iCAT_SR tool grouped by clinic-based interventions versus system or interagency interventions. Areas of high complexity identified across studies included having multiple active intervention components that targeted a complex collection of behaviors (Fig. 2). Interventions were typically highly flexible to allow tailoring of support provided to individual patients depending on their clinical and housing needs. In general, the nature of the causal pathway from the intervention to the intended patient outcome (e.g., improved physical/mental health, stable housing) was not explicitly described but inferred to be variable (adding complexity) and to occur over an extended period of time. Areas of intervention complexity that varied from study to study included the organizational levels targeted by the intervention, as some interventions focused only on patients receiving care (less complex) while others also included provider and clinic level components (more complex). Interactions of intervention components were moderate to highly complex as most interventions involved interdisciplinary care across multiple facets of a given patient’s social, mental, and physical health with an explicit expectation that these aspects of care be coordinated and intertwined. In contrast, we found a low level of complexity related to expectations of the skills of program participants at entry, as patients could receive care at their baseline level of function. Similarly, staff delivering these interventions required minimal skills beyond their standard disciplinary training.
We identified 22 studies that described a wide range of intervention strategies with the potential to promote primary care engagement for patients with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Our findings align with prior research showing that care coordination and case management are commonly used strategies to improve health for individuals with SMI or individuals with experiences of homelessness21,50,51 and that interventions often used several components implemented at multiple levels by multi-disciplinary teams.20,21 We identified other previously reported strategies, including health education, material housing support, interdisciplinary needs assessments, provider training, and shared record systems and strategies not previously reported by other reviews, including supportive therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy, stigma reduction, trauma-informed care, justice system in-reach, and eliminating sobriety requirements.
Implementing the strategies we identified would help to move policy to action. For example, a recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report discusses how to make high quality primary care available within the USA,52 including moving towards payment models that enable team-based care and address social determinants of health by coordinating across multiple settings. The strategies that we identified could be incentivized by policy-makers and used by program administers to support new models of care for populations with limited interaction with primary care.
Limitations and Areas
This evidence synthesis should be interpreted in the context of several limitations related to our approach and to the existing literature. First, unlike a systematic review, an evidence map is not intended to draw conclusions about intervention effectiveness. Unfortunately, given the limited evidence-base we were unable to conduct a systematic review. Also, we accepted studies that were either clearly intended for patients with SMI or met our criteria for SMI and may have excluded studies that did not explicitly report serving a majority of patients with SMI. Second, in general, the literature applied low-quality study designs, including non-comparative, one-armed evaluations. We also found few pragmatic trials or implementation studies that would be helpful to inform future implementation and scale up of novel programs to support this patient population. Many included interventions were not singularly focused on promoting primary care integration—our outcome of interest—and as a result, studies did not report consistent outcomes for primary care integration. Relatedly, the depth and detail provided about interventions themselves were generally insufficient for determining the level of integration using validated tools.26 Many of the included studies focused on either the initial connection with primary care or providing integrated care for acute issues versus ensuring longitudinal engagement with primary care to manage chronic conditions which we expect would have a more sustained impact on health.
Areas for Future Research
Through this evidence map, we identified limitations in the existing published literature and a paucity of studies about how to foster primary care integration for populations with both SMI and experiences of homelessness. Current work on this topic is similarly underdeveloped. For example, a brief review of clinicaltrials.gov yielded no studies of patients with SMI and experiences of homelessness. More research is needed in this area to address current limitations. To strengthen the impact of these interventions on long-term health outcomes, future studies could monitor ongoing engagement in primary care over time for this population. To support comparisons and summary of effectiveness, the field needs to develop, validate, and consistently use outcome measures of primary care integration. The methodological rigor of studies for this population also needs to be improved while also focusing on translating the results more quickly into community settings. In addition to employing more RCT or rigorous observational studies, stepped wedge design pragmatic trials or adaptive studies that test multiple intervention strategies are novel designs to evaluate future interventions. Finally, effective interventions must be adopted into practice in ways that promote intervention sustainability. Implementation science methods are one approach that can be combined with pragmatic trials to intentionally adapt interventions to fit local contexts.
Individuals with SMI and experiences with homelessness often have chronic, complicated health needs. Systems and agencies that seek to implement similar interventions could use our mapping of multilevel strategies to develop their program. Also, our description of intervention complexity could guide new programs on how their intervention design might place demands on different dimensions of structural and person-level components.
Amato S, Nobay F, Amato DP, Abar B, Adler D. Sick and unsheltered: Homelessness as a major risk factor for emergency care utilization. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2019;37(3):415-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.06.001
Bharel M, Lin W-C, Zhang J, O’Connell E, Taube R, Clark RE. Health Care Utilization Patterns of Homeless Individuals in Boston: Preparing for Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(S2):S311-S7. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301421
Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet. 2014;384(9953):1529-40.
Baggett TP, Hwang SW, O'Connell JJ, Porneala BC, Stringfellow EJ, Orav EJ, et al. Mortality among homeless adults in Boston: shifts in causes of death over a 15-year period. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(3):189-95. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1604
Kerker BD, Bainbridge J, Kennedy J, Bennani Y, Agerton T, Marder D, et al. A population-based assessment of the health of homeless families in New York City, 2001-2003. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(3):546-53. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.193102
National Alliance on Mental Illness. Mental Health by the Numbers. [Website]. Available at: https://nami.org/mhstats. Accessed October 12, 2020.
National Coalition for the Homeless. Mental Illness and Homelessness. Available at: www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2021. 2009.
Childress S, Reitzel LR, Maria DS, Kendzor DE, Moisiuc A, Businelle MS. Mental illness and substance use problems in relation to homelessness onset. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(4):549-55. doi:https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.39.4.11
Kushel MB, Gupta R, Gee L, Haas JS. Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006;21(1):71-7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00278.x
Omerov P, Craftman Å G, Mattsson E, Klarare A. Homeless persons' experiences of health- and social care: A systematic integrative review. Health & social care in the community. 2020;28(1):1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12857
Smith JD, Mittal D, Chekuri L, Han X, Sullivan G. A comparison of provider attitudes toward serious mental illness across different health care disciplines. Stigma and Health. 2017;2(4):327-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000064
Jones AL, Thomas R, Hedayati DO, Saba SK, Conley J, Gordon AJ. Patient predictors and utilization of health services within a medical home for homeless persons. Substance Abuse. 2018;39(3):354-60.
Tsai J, Doran KM, Rosenheck RA. When health insurance is not a factor: national comparison of homeless and nonhomeless US veterans who use Veterans Affairs Emergency Departments. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103 Suppl 2:S225-31.
Gerrity M. Integrating Primary Care into Behavioral Health Settings: What Works for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness (2014). Available at: https://www.milbank.org/publications/integrating-primary-care-into-behavioral-health-settings-what-works-for-individuals-with-serious-mental-illness/. Accessed January 25, 2021.
Gundlapalli AV, Redd A, Bolton D, Vanneman ME, Carter ME, Johnson E, et al. Patient-aligned Care Team Engagement to Connect Veterans Experiencing Homelessness With Appropriate Health Care. Med Care. 2017;55 Suppl 9 Suppl 2:S104-S10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000770
O'Toole TP, Buckel L, Bourgault C, Blumen J, Redihan SG, Jiang L, et al. Applying the chronic care model to homeless veterans: effect of a population approach to primary care on utilization and clinical outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(12):2493-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.179416
Schick V, Wiginton L, Crouch C, Haider A, Isbell F. Integrated Service Delivery and Health-Related Quality of Life of Individuals in Permanent Supportive Housing Who Were Formerly Chronically Homeless. American Journal of Public Health. 2019;109(2):313-9.
Rosenheck RA, Dennis D. Time-limited assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001;58(11):1073-80.
McHugo GJ, Bebout RR, Harris M, Cleghorn S, Herring G, Xie H, et al. A randomized controlled trial of integrated versus parallel housing services for homeless adults with severe mental illness. Schizophrenia bulletin. 2004;30(4):969-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007146
Health Quality Ontario. Interventions to Improve Access to Primary Care for People Who Are Homeless: A Systematic Review. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016;16(9):1-50.
Jego M, Abcaya J, Ștefan DE, Calvet-Montredon C, Gentile S. Improving Health Care Management in Primary Care for Homeless People: A Literature Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020309
Saran A, White H. Evidence and gap maps: a comparison of different approaches. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2018.
Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097-e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Resources for Integrated Care. Behavioral Health Integration Capacity Assessment Tool. Available at: https://www.resourcesforintegratedcare.com/tool/bhica. Accessed January 25, 2021.
Health Resources & Services Administration. Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT). Available at: https://www.hrsa.gov/behavioral-health/integrated-practice-assessment-tool-ipat. Accessed January 25, 2021.
Lewin S, Hendry M, Chandler J, Oxman AD, Michie S, Shepperd S, et al. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR). BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2017;17(1):76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0349-x
Cheng AL, Kelly PJ. Impact of an integrated service system on client outcomes by gender in a national sample of a mentally ill homeless population. Gender Medicine. 2008;5(4):395-404.
Steadman HJ, Cocozza JJ, Dennis DL, Lassiter MG, Randolph FL, Goldman H, et al. Successful program maintenance when federal demonstration dollars stop: the ACCESS program for homeless mentally ill persons. Administration & Policy in Mental Health. 2002;29(6):481-93.
Rosenheck RA, Lam J, Morrissey JP, Calloway MO, Stolar M, Randolph F, et al. Service systems integration and outcomes for mentally ill homeless persons in the ACCESS program. Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports. Psychiatric Services. 2002;53(8):958–66.
Cocozza JJ, Steadman HJ, Dennis DL, Blasinsky M, Randolph FL, Johnsen M, et al. Successful systems integration strategies: the access program for persons who are homeless and mentally ill. Administration & Policy in Mental Health. 2000;27(6):395-407.
Calloway MO, Morrissey JP. Overcoming service barriers for homeless persons with serious psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric Services. 1998;49(12):1568-72.
Rosenheck R, Lam JA. Homeless mentally ill clients' and providers' perceptions of service needs and clients' use of services. Psychiatric Services. 1997;48(3):381-6.
Morrissey J, Calloway M, Johnsen M, Ullman M. Service system performance and integration: a baseline profile of the ACCESS demonstration sites. Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports. Psychiatric Services. 1997;48(3):374-80.
Stergiopoulos V, Gozdzik A, Nisenbaum R, Durbin J, Hwang SW, O'Campo P, et al. Bridging Hospital and Community Care for Homeless Adults with Mental Health Needs: Outcomes of a Brief Interdisciplinary Intervention. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2018;63(11):774-84.
Stanhope V, Henwood BF. Activating people to address their health care needs: learning from people with lived experience of chronic illnesses. Community Mental Health Journal. 2014;50(6):656-63.
Kelly EL, Braslow JT, Brekke JS. Using Electronic Health Records to Enhance a Peer Health Navigator Intervention: A Randomized Pilot Test for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness and Housing Instability. Community Mental Health Journal. 2018;54(8):1172-9.
Baker J, Travers JL, Buschman P, Merrill JA. An Efficient Nurse Practitioner-Led Community-Based Service Model for Delivering Coordinated Care to Persons With Serious Mental Illness at Risk for Homelessness. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. 2018;24(2):101-8.
Corrigan PW, Kraus DJ, Pickett SA, Schmidt A, Stellon E, Hantke E, et al. Using Peer Navigators to Address the Integrated Health Care Needs of Homeless African Americans With Serious Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services. 2017;68(3):264-70.
Stergiopoulos V, Schuler A, Nisenbaum R, deRuiter W, Guimond T, Wasylenki D, et al. The effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model vs. a shifted outpatient collaborative care model on community functioning, residential stability, and health service use among homeless adults with mental illness: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15:348.
Weinstein LC, LaNoue M, Collins E, Henwood BF, Drake RE. Health care integration for formerly homeless people with serious mental illness. Journal of Dual Diagnosis. 2013;9(1):72-7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2012.750089
Rivas-Vazquez RA, Sarria M, Rey G, Rivas-Vazquez AA, Rodriguez J, Jardon ME. A relationship-based care model for jail diversion. Psychiatric Services. 2009;60(6):766-71.
McGuire J, Gelberg L, Blue-Howells J, Rosenheck RA. Access to primary care for homeless veterans with serious mental illness or substance abuse: a follow-up evaluation of co-located primary care and homeless social services. Administration & Policy in Mental Health. 2009;36(4):255-64.
Rosenheck R, Gallup P, Frisman LK. Health care utilization and costs after entry into an outreach program for homeless mentally ill veterans. Hospital & Community Psychiatry. 1993;44(12):1166-71.
Weinstein LC, Lanoue MD, Plumb JD, King H, Stein B, Tsemberis S. A primary care-public health partnership addressing homelessness, serious mental illness, and health disparities. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2013;26(3):279-87.
Patterson M, Somers J, Moniruzzaman A. Sealing the cracks: Preliminary findings from an inter-ministry initiative to address chronic homelessness in British Columbia. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2012;26(5):426-8.
Solomon P. Services to severely mentally disabled homeless persons and to emergency food and shelter providers. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal. 1988;12(2):3-13.
Stergiopoulos V, O'Campo P, Gozdzik A, Jeyaratnam J, Corneau S, Sarang A, et al. Moving from rhetoric to reality: adapting Housing First for homeless individuals with mental illness from ethno-racial groups. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-345
Kelly E, Duan L, Cohen H, Kiger H, Pancake L, Brekke J. Integrating behavioral healthcare for individuals with serious mental illness: A randomized controlled trial of a peer health navigator intervention. Schizophr Res. 2017;182:135-41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2016.10.031
Bradford DW, Slubicki MN, McDuffie J, Kilbourne A, Nagi A, Williams JW, Jr. VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program Reports. Effects of Care Models to Improve General Medical Outcomes for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2011.
O'Toole TP, Johnson EE, Borgia ML, Rose J. Tailoring Outreach Efforts to Increase Primary Care Use Among Homeless Veterans: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2015;30(7):886-98.
National Academies of Sciences. Consensus Study Report Highliths: Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care. 2021. https://www.nap.edu/resource/25983/Highlights_High-Quality%20Primary%20Care-4.23.21_final.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2021.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Patient Care Services [website]. Available at: https://www.patientcare.va.gov/primarycare/index.asp#:~:text=Primary%20Care%20(PC)%20gives%20eligible,professionals%20familiar%20with%20their%20needs.&text=VA%20Primary%20Care%20honors%20America's,of%20their%20health%20care%20team. Accessed November 4, 2020.
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors, 2017. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc-resources-review-authors Accessed May 12, 2020.
Cadogan CA, Rankin A, Lewin S, Hughes CM. Application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews within a Cochrane review: an illustrative case study. HRB Open Res. 2020;3:31. doi:https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13044.1
Morrissey JP, Calloway MO, Thakur N, Cocozza J, Steadman HJ, Dennis D, et al. Integration of service systems for homeless persons with serious mental illness through the ACCESS program. Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports. Psychiatric Services. 2002;53(8):949-57.
Rosenheck R, Lam JA. Client and site characteristics as barriers to service use by homeless persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 1997;48(3):387-90.
Corrigan PW, Pickett S, Schmidt A, Stellon E, Hantke E, Kraus D, et al. Peer navigators to promote engagement of homeless African Americans with serious mental illness in primary care. Psychiatry Research. 2017;255:101-3.
Stergiopoulos V, Gozdzik A, Nisenbaum R, Lamanna D, Hwang SW, Tepper J, et al. Integrating Hospital and Community Care for Homeless People with Unmet Mental Health Needs: Program Rationale, Study Protocol and Sample Description of a Brief Multidisciplinary Case Management Intervention. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2017;15(2):362-78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9731-5
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following key stakeholders and technical expert panel members for their feedback and guidance Dina Hooshyar, MD, MPH; Daniel Bradford, MD, MPH; Nicholas Bowersox, PhD, ABPP; Evelyn Chang, MD, MSHS; and Sonya Gabrielian MD, MPH. Additionally, we would like to thank Stacy Lavin, PhD, and Liz Wing, MA, for editorial assistance.
This project was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service (ESP 09–010). This work was also supported by the Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT) (CIN 13–410) at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Shepherd-Banigan was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development HSR&D Career Development Award (CDA 17-006). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official views or policy of the Department of Defense or its Components.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shepherd-Banigan, M., Drake, C., Dietch, J.R. et al. Primary Care Engagement Among Individuals with Experiences of Homelessness and Serious Mental Illness: an Evidence Map. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 1513–1523 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07244-z
- Housing insecurity
- Serious mental illness
- Primary care