A Good Farewell? Positive Exits from Federal Housing Assistance and Lower Acute Healthcare Utilization.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Alastair I Matheson, Danny V Colombara, Annie Pennucci, Andy Chan, Tyler Shannon, Megan Suter, Amy A Laurent
{"title":"A Good Farewell? Positive Exits from Federal Housing Assistance and Lower Acute Healthcare Utilization.","authors":"Alastair I Matheson, Danny V Colombara, Annie Pennucci, Andy Chan, Tyler Shannon, Megan Suter, Amy A Laurent","doi":"10.1007/s11524-023-00789-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Little is known regarding the health outcomes of people who exit from housing assistance and if that experience varies by the circumstances under which a person exits. We asked two questions: (1) does the type of exit from housing assistance matter for healthcare utilization? And (2) how does each exit type compare to remaining in housing assistance in terms of healthcare utilization? This retrospective cohort study of 5550 exits between 2012 and 2018 used data from two large, urban public housing authorities in King County, Washington. Exposures were exiting from housing assistance and type of exit (positive, neutral, negative). Outcomes were emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and well-child checks (among those aged < 6) in the year following exit from housing assistance. After adjustment for demographics and baseline healthcare utilization, people with positive exits had 26% (95% confident interval: 6-39%) lower odds of having 1 + ED visits in the year following exit than people with negative exits and 20% (95% CI: 6-31%) lower odds than those who continued receiving housing assistance. Neutral and negative exits did not differ substantially from each other, and both exit types appear to be detrimental to health, with higher levels of ED visits and hospitalizations and lower levels of well-child checks. Why people exit from housing assistance matters. Those with negative exits experience poorer outcomes and efforts should be made to both prevent this kind of exit and mitigate its impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":49964,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10728032/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-023-00789-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Little is known regarding the health outcomes of people who exit from housing assistance and if that experience varies by the circumstances under which a person exits. We asked two questions: (1) does the type of exit from housing assistance matter for healthcare utilization? And (2) how does each exit type compare to remaining in housing assistance in terms of healthcare utilization? This retrospective cohort study of 5550 exits between 2012 and 2018 used data from two large, urban public housing authorities in King County, Washington. Exposures were exiting from housing assistance and type of exit (positive, neutral, negative). Outcomes were emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and well-child checks (among those aged < 6) in the year following exit from housing assistance. After adjustment for demographics and baseline healthcare utilization, people with positive exits had 26% (95% confident interval: 6-39%) lower odds of having 1 + ED visits in the year following exit than people with negative exits and 20% (95% CI: 6-31%) lower odds than those who continued receiving housing assistance. Neutral and negative exits did not differ substantially from each other, and both exit types appear to be detrimental to health, with higher levels of ED visits and hospitalizations and lower levels of well-child checks. Why people exit from housing assistance matters. Those with negative exits experience poorer outcomes and efforts should be made to both prevent this kind of exit and mitigate its impact.

Abstract Image

告别?积极退出联邦住房援助和较低的急性医疗保健利用率。
关于退出住房援助的人的健康结果,以及这种经历是否因一个人退出的情况而异,人们所知甚少。我们提出了两个问题:(1)退出住房援助的类型对医疗保健利用有影响吗?(2)在医疗保健利用方面,每种退出类型与留在住房援助中的类型相比如何?这项对2012年至2018年间5550个出口的回顾性队列研究使用了华盛顿州金县两个大型城市公共住房管理机构的数据。暴露为住房援助退出和退出类型(积极、中性、消极)。结果是急诊科就诊、住院和儿童健康检查(在老年人中)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
105
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Urban Health is the premier and authoritative source of rigorous analyses to advance the health and well-being of people in cities. The Journal provides a platform for interdisciplinary exploration of the evidence base for the broader determinants of health and health inequities needed to strengthen policies, programs, and governance for urban health. The Journal publishes original data, case studies, commentaries, book reviews, executive summaries of selected reports, and proceedings from important global meetings. It welcomes submissions presenting new analytic methods, including systems science approaches to urban problem solving. Finally, the Journal provides a forum linking scholars, practitioners, civil society, and policy makers from the multiple sectors that can influence the health of urban populations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信