H omeless and vulnerably housed populations are heterogeneous 1 and continue to grow in numbers in urban and rural settings as forces of urbanization collide with gentrification and austerity policies. 2 Collectively, they face dangerous living conditions and marginalization within health care systems. 3 However, providers can improve the health of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed, most powerfully by following evidence-based initial steps, and working with communities and adopting anti-oppressive practices. 1,4,5 Broadly speaking, "homelessness" encompasses all individuals without stable, permanent and acceptable housing, or lacking the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it. 6 Under such conditions, individuals and families face intersecting social, mental and physical health risks that significantly increase morbidity and mortality. 7,8 For example, people who are homeless and vulnerably housed experience a significantly higher prevalence of trauma, mental health conditions and substance use disorders than the general population. 7,9 Canadian research reports that people who experience homelessness face life expectancies as low as 42 years for men and 52 years for women. 7 A generation ago, homeless Canadians were largely middleaged, single men in large urban settings. 10 Today, the epidemiology has shifted to include higher proportions of women, youth, Indigenous people (Box 1), immigrants, older adults and people from rural communities. 13,14 For example, family homelessness (and therefore homelessness among dependent children and youth) is a substantial, yet hidden, part of the crisis. 15 In 2014, of the estimated 235 000 homeless people in Canada, 27.3% were women, 18.7% were youth, 6% were recent immigrants or migrants, and a growing number were veterans and seniors. 10

Background Individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed are at an increased risk for mental illness, other morbidities and premature death. Standard case management interventions as well as more intensive models with practitioner support, such as assertive community treatment, critical time interventions, and intensive case management, may improve healthcare navigation and outcomes. However, the definitions of these models as well as the fidelity and adaptations in real world interventions are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of case management interventions on health and social outcomes for homeless populations. Methods and findings We searched Medline, Embase and 7 other electronic databases for trials on case management or care coordination, from the inception of these databases to July 2019. We sought outcomes on housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalization, income and employment, and cost-effectiveness. We calculated pooled random effects estimates and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 13,811 citations; and 56 primary studies met our full inclusion criteria. Standard case management had both limited and short-term effects on substance use and housing outcomes and showed potential to increase hostility and depression. Intensive case

No abstract

We aimed to evaluate the evidence on screening and treatment for two parasitic infections—schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis—among migrants from endemic countries arriving in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1 January 1993 and 30 May 2016 presenting evidence on diagnostic and treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We conducted additional systematic search for individual studies published between 2010 and 2017. We assessed the methodological quality of reviews and studies using the AMSTAR, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and QUADAS-II tools. Study synthesis and assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We included 28 systematic reviews and individual studies in this review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for the effectiveness of screening techniques and moderate to high for treatment efficacy. Antibody-detecting serological tests are the most effective screening tests for detection of both schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in low-endemicity settings, because they have higher sensitivity than conventional parasitological methods. Short courses of praziquantel and ivermectin were safe and highly effective and cost-effective in treating schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis, respectively. Economic modelling suggests presumptive single-dose treatment of strongyloidiasis with ivermectin for all migrants is likely cost-effective, but feasibility of this strategy has yet to be demonstrated in clinical studies. The evidence supports screening and treatment for schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in migrants from endemic countries, to reduce morbidity and mortality.