Canadian community mental health workers’ perceived priorities for supportive housing services in northern and rural contexts

Abstract

A relationship between mental health and supportive housing has been established, yet there exist enduring challenges in meeting the supportive housing needs of people with severe mental health problems. Furthermore, not all stakeholder viewpoints of supportive housing services are well documented in the research literature, and research has tended to focus on supportive housing provision in large, urban centres. Potentially, distinct challenges and opportunities associated with the provision of supportive housing services in smaller urban and rural communities that define the greater geographical terrain of Canada and other jurisdictions are less developed. This study describes community mental health service workers' priorities for supportive housing services. Using Q methodology, 39 statements about supportive housing services, developed from a mixed-methods parent study, were sorted by 58 service providers working in four communities in northern Ontario, Canada. Data used in this study were collected in 2010. Q analysis was used to identify correlations between service workers who held similar and different viewpoints concerning service priorities. The results yielded four discrete viewpoints about priorities for delivery of supportive housing services including: a functional system, service efficiency, individualised services and promotion of social inclusion. Common across these viewpoints was the need for concrete deliverables inclusive of financial supports and timely access to adequate housing. These findings have the potential to inform the development of housing policy in regions of low population density which address both system and individual variables.

Association of living density with anxiety and stress: A cross‐sectional population study in Hong Kong

“…Thus, the Housing Authority should consider increasing the construction of decent housing to reallocate families in dense public housing flats to larger flats. Other housing services and assistance, such as rental subsidy and supported housings, may also help those at risk of mental problems (Mccauley et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2007; Watson et al., 2019).…”

“…Apart from policy‐level intervention, the findings of this study also have implications for social work practices. Social workers have played key roles in promoting the mental health of people, especially in delivering mental health support services and housing policy advocacy (Mccauley et al., 2015). Our findings recognised the group of households that were at risk of mental distress, which included not only young female adults but also those living in income poverty and in houses with dense living spaces.…”

“…For example, a study in Australia has shown that people with unfulfilled needs of accommodation were likely to experience high psychological distress (Isaacs, Beauchamp, Sutton, & Maybery, 2019). The enhancement of housing support and assistance generally strengthens the mental health of individuals (Mccauley, Montgomery, Mossey, & Bailey, 2015; Nelson, Aubry, & Lafrance, 2007; Watson, Fossey, & Harvey, 2019). Kyle and Dunn (2008) found that housing intervention was positively associated with the health conditions of people with mental health problems.…”

An extra care community's perceived priorities for ‘whole system’ relationships: a Q-methodological study

“…); mental health and housing (McCauley et al . ); health lifestyles (van Exel et al . ); quality of life (Stenner et al .…”

“…Q methodology has particular utility in health and social care due to its appropriateness in complex social situations where professional and user perspectives differ, and where evidence is drawn from a wide base (Stainton Rogers 1991), where there is a need to include the marginalised (Brown 2006), and a robust qualitative technique is required (Cross 2005). Divergent areas of H&SC research using Q methodology include pain (Eccleston et al 1997); mental health and housing (McCauley et al 2015); health lifestyles (van Exel et al 2006); quality of life (Stenner et al 2003); economics of health choices (Baker 2006); team working (Buljac-Samardzic et al 2011);risk training (McKeown et al 1999); and nursing practice (Clarke & Holt 2015).…”