Factors associated with recovery from homelessness among veterans in permanent supportive housing

Abstract

Aims We sought to identify person‐ and program‐level factors distinguishing permanent supportive housing (PSH) residents with higher versus lower social integration; and higher versus lower instrumental functioning. Methods Among 60 PSH residents at Los Angeles' VA, surveys and medical records captured person‐level factors. Using a median split, we dichotomized participants with higher versus lower social integration; and higher versus lower instrumental functioning. Recursive partitioning (RP) identified variables that best‐differentiated these subgroups. Interviews with 26 participants captured their perceptions on social integration and instrumental functioning. Results Using RP, health‐related quality of life, psychiatric symptoms and case management frequency best‐differentiated the social integration subgroups. Few perceived that PSH affected social integration. RP did not yield a stable model to differentiate the instrumental functioning subgroups; participants perceived that PSH addressed most functional deficits. Conclusions Services that enhance social integration may benefit PSH residents with poor health; existing services may adequately address instrumental functioning.

Health or wealth? The influence of perceived health and wealth threats and style of thinking on protective behaviours and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain (¿Salud o riqueza? La influencia de las amenazas percibidas contra la salud y la riqueza y del estilo de pensamiento en las conductas de protección y el bienestar durante la pandemia de COVID-19 en España)

“…Por tanto, según la teoría del nivel de conceptualización, dado que el marco teórico permite únicamente conclusiones relativas o comparativas y todas las predicciones deben interpretarse desde una perspectiva comparativa (véase MacGregor et al, 2017, p. 609), dividimos la muestra en dos grupos de participantes: aquellos con un estilo de pensamiento relativamente más abstracto, por un lado, y los que presentaban un estilo de pensamiento relativamente más concreto, por otro, en función de la mediana en la escala BIF ( Md = 19). Esta estrategia comparativa nos permite atender al carácter continuo del nivel de conceptualización (véase un razonamiento comparativo similar en Gabrielian et al, 2021; Lucas & Kteily, 2018). Los participantes con puntuaciones inferiores a la mediana formaron el grupo relativamente más concreto ( N = 505) y los demás constituyeron el grupo relativamente más abstracto ( N = 538).…”

“…Thus, because construal level theory, as a theoretical framework, only affords comparative or relative conclusions, and all predictions must be understood in a comparative perspective (see MacGregor et al, 2017, p. 609), we divided the sample into participants with relatively more abstract and relatively more concrete thinking styles using the median score on the BIF scale (Md = 19). This comparative strategy allowed us to recognize the continuous nature of the construal level construct (see similar comparative reasoning in Gabrielian et al, 2021;Lucas & Kteily, 2018). Participants with scores lower than the median were considered the relatively more concrete group (N = 505), and the other participants constituted the relatively more abstract group (N = 538).…”