Respect for patient autonomy is such a strong pillar of health care that involuntary treatment should be unusual. Despite this ethical and clinical principle, compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.^1-3

Aims: Many people who are homeless with severe mental illnesses are high users of healthcare services and social services, without reducing widen health inequalities in this vulnerable population. This study aimed to determine whether independent housing with mental health support teams with a recovery-oriented approach (Housing First (HF) program) for people who are homeless with severe mental disorders improves hospital and emergency department use.Methods: We did a randomised controlled trial in four French cities: Lille, Marseille, Paris and Toulouse. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years or older, being absolutely homeless or precariously housed, with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (SCZ) or bipolar disorder (BD) and were required to have a high level of needs (moderate-to-severe disability and past hospitalisations over the last 5 years or comorbid alcohol or substance use disorder). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to immediate access to independent housing and support from the Assertive Community Treatment team (social worker, nurse, doctor, psychiatrist and peer worker) (HF group) or treatment as usual (TAU group) namely pre-existing dedicated homeless-targeted programs and services. Participants and interviewers were unmasked to assignment. The primary outcomes were the number of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalisation admissions and inpatient days at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale), quality of life (SQOL and SF36), mental health symptoms, addiction issues, stably housed days and cost savings from a societal perspective. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.Results: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the HF group (n= 353) or TAU group (n= 350). No differences were found in the number of hospital admissions (relative risk (95% CI), 0.96 (0.76–1.21)) or ED visits (0.89 (0.66–1.21)). Significantly less inpatient days were found for HFv.TAU (0.62 (0.48–0.80)). The HF group exhibited higher housing stability (difference in slope, 116 (103–128)) and higher scores for sub-dimensions of S-QOL scale (psychological well-being and autonomy). No differences were found for physical composite score SF36, mental health symptoms and rates of alcohol or substance dependence. Mean difference in costs was €-217 per patient over 24 months in favour of the HF group. HF was associated with cost savings in healthcare costs (RR 0.62(0.48–0.78)) and residential costs (0.07 (0.05–0.11)).Conclusion: An immediate access to independent housing and support from a mental health team resulted in decreased inpatient days, higher housing stability and cost savings in homeless persons with SCZ or BP disorders.

Background: Recent studies in North American contexts have suggested that the Housing First model is a promising strategy for providing effective services to homeless people with mental illness. In the context of the highly generous French national health and social care system, which is easily accessible and does not require out-of-pocket payment, the French Health Ministry insists on rigorous techniques, including randomized protocols, to evaluate the impact of Housing First approaches in France. Method and design: A prospective randomized trial was designed to assess the impact of a Housing First intervention on health outcomes and costs over a period of 24 months on homeless people with severe mental illness, compared to Treatment-As-Usual. The study is being conducted in four cities in France: Lille, Marseille, Paris and Toulouse. The inclusion criteria are as follows: over 18 years of age, absolutely homeless or in precarious housing, and possessing a ‘high’ level of need: diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and moderate to severe disability according to the Multnomah Community Ability Scale (score ≤ 62) and at least one of the following three criteria: 1) having been hospitalized for mental illness two or more times in any one year during the preceding five years; 2) co-morbid alcohol or substance use; and 3) having been recently arrested or incarcerated. Participants will be randomized to receiving the Housing First intervention or Treatment-As-Usual. The Housing First intervention provides immediate access to independent housing and community care. The primary outcome criterion is the use of high-cost health services (that is,, number of hospital admissions and number of emergency department visits) during the 24-month follow-up period. Secondary outcome measures include health outcomes, social functioning, housing stability and contact with police services. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Housing First will also be conducted. A total of 300 individuals per group will be included. Discussion: This is the first study to examine the impact of a Housing First intervention compared to Treatment-As-Usual in France. It should provide key information to policymakers concerning the cost-effectiveness and health outcomes of the Housing First model in the French context. Trial registration: The current clinical trial number is NCT01570712

The implementation and adaptation of the Housing First (HF) model represented profound changes the structure and delivery, goals, and principles of homeless services. These features of homeless services directly influence providers, their work performance and the clients’ outcomes. The present research, conducted in eight European countries, investigated how social providers working in HF or TS (Traditional Staircase) describe and conceptualize the goals and the principles of their services. Data were collected through 29 focus group discussions involving 121 providers. The results showed that HF and TS had similar and different goals for their clients in the following areas: support, social integration, satisfaction of needs, housing, and well-being. HF providers emphasized clients’ autonomy and ability to determine their personal goals, with housing being considered a start on the path of recovery, while TS were more focused on individual clients’ basic needs with respect to food, health and finding temporary accommodations. HF providers privileged the person-centered approach and housing as a right, while TS providers were more focused on helping everyone. Implications of the results are discussed as suggestions both for practice and for research.

While social inequality is widely recognised as being a risk factor for COVID-19 infection or serious forms of the disease, many questions still remain concerning the perception of hazard and protective measures by the most vulnerable populations.

Background: Homeless people face large excess mortality in comparison with the general population, but little is known about the effect of housing interventions like Housing First (HF) on their mortality. Aims of the study: 1) to explore 2-years mortality among homeless people with severe mental illness (SMI) included in French HF randomized controlled trial (RCT). 2) To examine causes of death among homeless participants. Methods: For 703 participants of HF RCT: 353 in experimental group (HF) and 350 in control group (Treatment As Usual - TAU), any proof of life or death and causes of death were collected with a thorough retrospective investigation among relatives, institutions and administrative databases. Data collection took place from March to June 2017. Results: 4.8% (n = 34) of the study participants died over the study period. Mean age of death was 40.9 (+/− 11.4) years. The overall 2-years mortality rate was 0.065 in the HF group (n = 23) versus 0.034 in the TAU group (n = 11). Mortality was associated with medications for opioid use disorder in multivariate Cox analysis (HR: 2.37, 95%CI 1.15–5.04, p = 0.025). Those in HF group seem to be more at risk of death compared to TAU group, mainly during the first 6 months of being housed, although the difference did not reach significance (HR: 0.49, 95%CI 0.24–1.01, p = 0.054). Violent deaths occurred in 52.2% of HF group’s deaths versus 18.2% of TAU group’s deaths, this excess being explained by 34.8% (n = 8) deaths by overdoses in HF group versus none in TAU group. Limitations: 1) 8.7% (n = 2) people in HF group died before HF intervention but were analyzed in intention-to-treat. 2) No proof of life or death has been found for only 0.6% in HF group (n = 2) but for 9.5% people in TAU group (n = 33) that could be anonymous deaths. 3) Undetermined causes represented 8.7% of deaths in HF group versus 36.4% in TAU group. 4) The small number of events (deaths) in the study population is a limitation for statistical analysis. Conclusions: Due to important limitations, we cannot conclude on HF effect on mortality, but our results nevertheless confirm that the vulnerability of long-term homeless people with SMI persists after accessing independent housing. Earlier intervention in the pathways of homelessness should be considered, alongside active specific support for addictions. Trial registration: Ethics Committee Sud Mediterrannée V n° 11.050: trial number 2011-A00668–33: 28/07/2011. Clinicaltrials ID NCT01570712: 4/4/2012.