Counting homelessness: Working creatively to generate complex descriptive profiles of the health and demographics of people experiencing homelessness in Adelaide

Abstract

Analyses of the prevalence of homelessness suggest homelessness is increasing in Australia and other countries. Yet, difficulties exist in obtaining an accurate picture of homelessness due to a dearth of robust data and inconsistent definitions. This study aimed to build a comprehensive descriptive profile of homelessness and associated health needs in Adelaide. Five data sources were analysed and compared to produce descriptive sociodemographic and health statistics. Across data sources, people experiencing homelessness had a high prevalence of poor health outcomes and service utilisation. Consistent with the international literature, high rates of physical and mental health conditions were reported, including depression, anxiety and dental problems. While there was variability in demographic data, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were consistently over‐represented. Analysing data from multiple sources provided a richer understanding of who is experiencing homelessness and their health needs, highlights it is not always necessary to collect new data to overcome dataset limitations and illustrates how data comparison can improve the use of existing data. The paper concludes with reflections on the challenges and potential of the methodology. Overall, the study shows analysing data from multiple sources can provide rich information to service providers and government departments to inform more nuanced and effective services.

Intersectoral collaboration for supporting the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal families and children in out-of-home care: perspectives from Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations

“…Many of our research findings, including themes discussing the importance of effective communication, strong intersectoral partnerships built on trust, availability and coverage of services, adequate funding and having a shared vision and approach were consistent with findings across a range of different contexts (36,37,(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44). This demonstrates alignment with Kuruvilla et al 's (46) findings, which found similarities in how sectors collaborated between different research contexts.…”

“…Mutual trust and respect, fair decision-making processes, clear and effective communication and effective leadership were found to characterize successful intersectoral relationships ( 39 ). These factors promoting intersectoral collaboration have been replicated in recent literature, with common themes around access to resources, communication, trust, shared vision, decision-making equality, and structured and integrated modes of collaborating ( 36 , 37 , 39–44 ). Other studies have emphasized external influences that can have an impact on intersectoral collaboration, including the importance of sustainable financing and having access to secure, long-term and comprehensive financial means to sustaining intersectoral partnerships ( 45 ).…”

“…Despite the concepts often being used interchangeably, intersectoral collaboration differs from interagency collaboration as it emphasizes the meaningful action agencies from non-health sectors can contribute to public health improvement ( 35 ). Intersectoral approaches to addressing complex health problems have been increasingly promoted by international organisations and institutions, including the World Health Organisation, with concepts including ‘intersectoral action for health equity’ and ‘health in all policies’ becoming widely recognized and adopted in public health practice ( 36 , 37 ). These approaches incentivise collaboration between health and non-health sectors by emphasizing a ‘win-win’ approach, whereby desirable outcomes are mutually beneficial for all sectors involved ( 35 , 37 ).…”

“…Intersectoral approaches to addressing complex health problems have been increasingly promoted by international organisations and institutions, including the World Health Organisation, with concepts including ‘intersectoral action for health equity’ and ‘health in all policies’ becoming widely recognized and adopted in public health practice ( 36 , 37 ). These approaches incentivise collaboration between health and non-health sectors by emphasizing a ‘win-win’ approach, whereby desirable outcomes are mutually beneficial for all sectors involved ( 35 , 37 ). However, despite widespread recognition and acceptance of intersectoral approaches, there is a limited evidence base discussing how intersectoral collaboration can be transformed into action ( 38 ).…”

“…There is no ‘one-size-fits-all model’ on how intersectoral collaboration should be approached ( 37 ). This is because context matters: what works in one setting may not in another ( 37 ).…”