Pervasive interactions: a purposive best evidence review with methodological observations on the impact of housing circumstances and housing interventions on adult mental health and well‐being

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to present an overview of the current state of evidence on the effect of housing circumstances, and housing-related interventions, on adult mental health and well-being. It covers the entire range of health from chronic illness to positive thriving, and both individual and community-level/public health.Design/methodology/approach -The paper is based upon a purposive review, commissioned originally for the UK Department of Health; and therefore is selective in giving priority to research relevant to public policy considerations, and to the UK context. Research with a variety of methodological foundations is considered, where robust enough by its own standards.Findings -The available evidence gives conditional support to policies accentuating empowerment at individual and community levels; early intervention; locality or place-based interventions; and integrated working practice. The complexity of methodological issues emerges as a key challenge for research in this field, and for the prospect of evidence-based national policy. Meanwhile local knowledge and interpretation of data in context may be more reliable than context-blind studies.Research limitations/implications -Where ''hard evidence'' is unavailable, reports of the lived experience of individuals and in communities remain a legitimate basis for policy and commissioning.Originality/value -This appears to be the first attempt in print to cover such a wide canvas in one overview.

Mental health and the settings of housing support – a systematic review and conceptual model

“…Literature relating to mental health and housing-related support generally pays little attention to built environment factors, despite people spending 90 per cent of their time indoors (Evans, 2003). Weich et al (2003) and Johnson (2013) suggested that people not employed and spending much of their time at home are more susceptible to the effects of local areas or housing. The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) ( 2004) report on mental health and social exclusion estimated that only 24 per cent of adults with long-term mental health problems are employed.…”

“…A quantitative systematic review published in 2002 by Chilvers et al found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which met their selection criteria, and concluded that the value of supported housing was untested. However, as Fakhoury et al (2002) pointed out the scope for carrying out RCTs is severely limited by practical and ethical issues; Johnson (2013) observed "people cannot be unaware of where, how, or whether, they are housed; and of what it means to them" meaning that the conditions required for RCTs are probably unachievable in this field.…”

Overview of “Systematic Reviews” of the Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health

“…Two government-sponsored scoping reviews from Canada and the UK were published in 2013 and 2018, respectively [58,59]. e former studies the impact of housing circumstances and housing interventions in mental health while the latter explores the impact of natural environments.…”

Vulnerable Adults in the Privately Rented Sector in England: A Snapshot of Current Practice Issues

“…The backdrop of a constantly changing politically and economically driven housing market throws up new challenges when exercising the housing rights of service users. It would be fair to say that this picture is complicated and confusing for the average UK social worker in their day to day practice (Johnson, 2013). Aggravation of his scenario is exacerbated by recent government policies such as the Housing and Planning Act (2016) which is anticipated to result in the loss of 350,000 social rental homes by 2020 (Brown, 2016).…”