Inclusion health is a service, research, and policy agenda that aims to prevent and redress health and social inequities among the most vulnerable and excluded populations. We did an evidence synthesis of health and social interventions for inclusion health target populations, including people with experiences of homelessness, drug use, imprisonment, and sex work. These populations often have multiple overlapping risk factors and extreme levels of morbidity and mortality. We identified numerous interventions to improve physical and mental health, and substance use; however, evidence is scarce for structural interventions, including housing, employment, and legal support that can prevent exclusion and promote recovery. Dedicated resources and better collaboration with the affected populations are needed to realise the benefits of existing interventions. Research must inform the benefits of early intervention and implementation of policies to address the upstream causes of exclusion, such as adverse childhood experiences and poverty.
The homeless population has complex needs. Peers with experience of homelessness offer unique perspectives in supporting those experiencing homelessness. Peer support fostered and developed by professional organisations, termed intentional peer support (IPS), formalises this process. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of IPS as an intervention with young adults and adult homeless persons (including streetdwelling and those within services). PyscINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched, resulting in ten studies, involving 1,829 participants. Peer support has significant impacts on quality of life, drug/alcohol use, and social support. Common elements of peer support are identified, suggesting possible processes that underlie effective peer support. Shared experiences, role modelling, and social support are suggested to be vital aspects of peer support and moderate changes in homeless clients. One study was deemed to have moderate/high quality; the remaining studies had low and moderate quality. Limitations of each are discussed.
Objective: Two types of paranoia have been identified, namely persecution (or ‘Poor Me’) paranoia, and punishment (or ‘Bad Me’) paranoia. This research tests predicted differences in phenomenology – specifically, in person evaluative beliefs, self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and anger. Method: Fifty-three people with current paranoid beliefs were classified as Poor Me, Bad Me, or neither (classification was reliable). Key dependent variables were measured. Results: All predictions were supported, except the one relating to anger, where the two groups did not differ. The Bad Me group had lower self-esteem, more negative self-evaluative thinking, lower negative evaluations about others, higher depression and anxiety. Importantly, the differences in self-esteem and self-evaluations were not fully accounted for by differences in depression. Conclusion: Data support the presence of two distinct topographies of paranoia. Future research is needed to explore the theory further and examine clinical implications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.