| Author . | Outreach setting . | Number of patients . | Numbers of visits . | Rate of appointment attendance . | Rates of treatment completion . | Suboptimal population reached . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bajis et al.53 | Hostel | 202 | 49% patients positively screened for hepatitis C virus (HCV) accepted direct-acting antiviral therapy (DAT), but 38% of these did not attend follow-up appointment | 33% patients with “significant liver fibrosis” commenced DAT, compared to 61% of those with “no/mild liver fibrosis” | ||
| Daly et al.38 | Homeless hostels, open access day centers for HPs | 204 | 51% attended follow-up appointments | 18% patients completed treatment as judged by dentist. | ||
| Of the 51% that did attend, 71% made first contact at an outreach session. 85% of all appointments were drop-in | ||||||
| Elissen et al.57 | Day shelters, night shelters, welfare shelters | 75 | Patients visited the outreach service 8.8 times/year on average (2.2 times every 3 months). This is in comparison to fewer than 2 visits/year a Dutch homeless person would visit a mainstream GP practice. | 58% patients who accessed this outreach GP service were registered with it already (as opposed to first time visitors) | ||
| Lowrie et al.52 | Homeless hostels, homeless day centers, soup kitchens, charities | 52 | 85% patients attended appointment after initial visit | |||
| O’Toole et al.58 | Homeless shelter, homeless drop-in centers, soup kitchen lines, social service agencies | 185 | Model that included both personal health assessment/brief intervention and clinic orientation significantly encouraged more visits (+88.7% patients/6 months) relative to model involving clinic orientation only (+80%/6 months), personal assessment/brief assessment only (+56.4%/6 months), or a model with no extra intervention at all (+37.1%/6 months) | |||
| Roche et al.37 | Hostel | 90% patients visited outreach service >20 times/year | ||||
| Simons et al.44 | Street, other fixed sites | 349 | 99% patients identified as needing treatment. 36.7% did not attend subsequent appointments, and 11.7% were not treated at all | 61% patients completed treatments, taking 1–18 appointments | Dedicated dental clinic (DDS) had higher proportion of patients finish treatment (67% vs. 42%) and a lower proportion quitting after their first appointment (13% vs. 46.2%) than outreach mobile dental clinic (MDS). 34% of DDS patients were homeless compared to 100% of those who used MDS. Overall, MDS patients were younger, less likely to have benefits and more likely to be rough sleepers | |
| Stormon et al.47 | Community organizations for HPs | 76 | 85% of patients attended an appointment after the initial visit. Appointments were more likely to be missed in the afternoon than in the morning | |||
| Stormon et al.39 | Community organization providing services to young HPs | 112 | 57% patients lost to follow-up, even with reminders | 56% of patients completed their treatment | ||
| 34% were drop-in appointments | ||||||
| Stormon et al.59 | Community organizations for HPs | N = 76 (Model 1) N = 66 (Model 2) N = 43 (Model 3) | Making dental appointments in person, directly following screen (Model 1), was the most effective model (84.2% patients attending the appointment). Making appointments through the phone following a screen (Model 2) was less effective (56.1%). Making appointments through a referral scheme without a screen (Model 3) was least effective (29.3%) | |||
| Tommasello et al.48 | Homeless shelter, street, soup kitchens, abandoned buildings, shooting galleries, prisons | 110 (but 91 for 12-month follow-up) | Patients accessed outreach service 28.6 times/year on average (median: 4.1 times). 82.7% returned to complete second part of questionnaire. Patients’ scores on multiple health measures positively correlated with increased visits to the clinic: those who did not visit the clinic or who visited the clinic less than 10 times during the study period declined on most measures. | Study targeted HIV positive HPs suffering from mental illness. However, more visits were made for problems other than mental health, such as medical care, social services, and addiction treatment |
| Author . | Outreach setting . | Number of patients . | Numbers of visits . | Rate of appointment attendance . | Rates of treatment completion . | Suboptimal population reached . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bajis et al.53 | Hostel | 202 | 49% patients positively screened for hepatitis C virus (HCV) accepted direct-acting antiviral therapy (DAT), but 38% of these did not attend follow-up appointment | 33% patients with “significant liver fibrosis” commenced DAT, compared to 61% of those with “no/mild liver fibrosis” | ||
| Daly et al.38 | Homeless hostels, open access day centers for HPs | 204 | 51% attended follow-up appointments | 18% patients completed treatment as judged by dentist. | ||
| Of the 51% that did attend, 71% made first contact at an outreach session. 85% of all appointments were drop-in | ||||||
| Elissen et al.57 | Day shelters, night shelters, welfare shelters | 75 | Patients visited the outreach service 8.8 times/year on average (2.2 times every 3 months). This is in comparison to fewer than 2 visits/year a Dutch homeless person would visit a mainstream GP practice. | 58% patients who accessed this outreach GP service were registered with it already (as opposed to first time visitors) | ||
| Lowrie et al.52 | Homeless hostels, homeless day centers, soup kitchens, charities | 52 | 85% patients attended appointment after initial visit | |||
| O’Toole et al.58 | Homeless shelter, homeless drop-in centers, soup kitchen lines, social service agencies | 185 | Model that included both personal health assessment/brief intervention and clinic orientation significantly encouraged more visits (+88.7% patients/6 months) relative to model involving clinic orientation only (+80%/6 months), personal assessment/brief assessment only (+56.4%/6 months), or a model with no extra intervention at all (+37.1%/6 months) | |||
| Roche et al.37 | Hostel | 90% patients visited outreach service >20 times/year | ||||
| Simons et al.44 | Street, other fixed sites | 349 | 99% patients identified as needing treatment. 36.7% did not attend subsequent appointments, and 11.7% were not treated at all | 61% patients completed treatments, taking 1–18 appointments | Dedicated dental clinic (DDS) had higher proportion of patients finish treatment (67% vs. 42%) and a lower proportion quitting after their first appointment (13% vs. 46.2%) than outreach mobile dental clinic (MDS). 34% of DDS patients were homeless compared to 100% of those who used MDS. Overall, MDS patients were younger, less likely to have benefits and more likely to be rough sleepers | |
| Stormon et al.47 | Community organizations for HPs | 76 | 85% of patients attended an appointment after the initial visit. Appointments were more likely to be missed in the afternoon than in the morning | |||
| Stormon et al.39 | Community organization providing services to young HPs | 112 | 57% patients lost to follow-up, even with reminders | 56% of patients completed their treatment | ||
| 34% were drop-in appointments | ||||||
| Stormon et al.59 | Community organizations for HPs | N = 76 (Model 1) N = 66 (Model 2) N = 43 (Model 3) | Making dental appointments in person, directly following screen (Model 1), was the most effective model (84.2% patients attending the appointment). Making appointments through the phone following a screen (Model 2) was less effective (56.1%). Making appointments through a referral scheme without a screen (Model 3) was least effective (29.3%) | |||
| Tommasello et al.48 | Homeless shelter, street, soup kitchens, abandoned buildings, shooting galleries, prisons | 110 (but 91 for 12-month follow-up) | Patients accessed outreach service 28.6 times/year on average (median: 4.1 times). 82.7% returned to complete second part of questionnaire. Patients’ scores on multiple health measures positively correlated with increased visits to the clinic: those who did not visit the clinic or who visited the clinic less than 10 times during the study period declined on most measures. | Study targeted HIV positive HPs suffering from mental illness. However, more visits were made for problems other than mental health, such as medical care, social services, and addiction treatment |
Positive findings are highlighted in light gray, negative findings are highlighted in dark gray.
| Author . | Outreach setting . | Number of patients . | Numbers of visits . | Rate of appointment attendance . | Rates of treatment completion . | Suboptimal population reached . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bajis et al.53 | Hostel | 202 | 49% patients positively screened for hepatitis C virus (HCV) accepted direct-acting antiviral therapy (DAT), but 38% of these did not attend follow-up appointment | 33% patients with “significant liver fibrosis” commenced DAT, compared to 61% of those with “no/mild liver fibrosis” | ||
| Daly et al.38 | Homeless hostels, open access day centers for HPs | 204 | 51% attended follow-up appointments | 18% patients completed treatment as judged by dentist. | ||
| Of the 51% that did attend, 71% made first contact at an outreach session. 85% of all appointments were drop-in | ||||||
| Elissen et al.57 | Day shelters, night shelters, welfare shelters | 75 | Patients visited the outreach service 8.8 times/year on average (2.2 times every 3 months). This is in comparison to fewer than 2 visits/year a Dutch homeless person would visit a mainstream GP practice. | 58% patients who accessed this outreach GP service were registered with it already (as opposed to first time visitors) | ||
| Lowrie et al.52 | Homeless hostels, homeless day centers, soup kitchens, charities | 52 | 85% patients attended appointment after initial visit | |||
| O’Toole et al.58 | Homeless shelter, homeless drop-in centers, soup kitchen lines, social service agencies | 185 | Model that included both personal health assessment/brief intervention and clinic orientation significantly encouraged more visits (+88.7% patients/6 months) relative to model involving clinic orientation only (+80%/6 months), personal assessment/brief assessment only (+56.4%/6 months), or a model with no extra intervention at all (+37.1%/6 months) | |||
| Roche et al.37 | Hostel | 90% patients visited outreach service >20 times/year | ||||
| Simons et al.44 | Street, other fixed sites | 349 | 99% patients identified as needing treatment. 36.7% did not attend subsequent appointments, and 11.7% were not treated at all | 61% patients completed treatments, taking 1–18 appointments | Dedicated dental clinic (DDS) had higher proportion of patients finish treatment (67% vs. 42%) and a lower proportion quitting after their first appointment (13% vs. 46.2%) than outreach mobile dental clinic (MDS). 34% of DDS patients were homeless compared to 100% of those who used MDS. Overall, MDS patients were younger, less likely to have benefits and more likely to be rough sleepers | |
| Stormon et al.47 | Community organizations for HPs | 76 | 85% of patients attended an appointment after the initial visit. Appointments were more likely to be missed in the afternoon than in the morning | |||
| Stormon et al.39 | Community organization providing services to young HPs | 112 | 57% patients lost to follow-up, even with reminders | 56% of patients completed their treatment | ||
| 34% were drop-in appointments | ||||||
| Stormon et al.59 | Community organizations for HPs | N = 76 (Model 1) N = 66 (Model 2) N = 43 (Model 3) | Making dental appointments in person, directly following screen (Model 1), was the most effective model (84.2% patients attending the appointment). Making appointments through the phone following a screen (Model 2) was less effective (56.1%). Making appointments through a referral scheme without a screen (Model 3) was least effective (29.3%) | |||
| Tommasello et al.48 | Homeless shelter, street, soup kitchens, abandoned buildings, shooting galleries, prisons | 110 (but 91 for 12-month follow-up) | Patients accessed outreach service 28.6 times/year on average (median: 4.1 times). 82.7% returned to complete second part of questionnaire. Patients’ scores on multiple health measures positively correlated with increased visits to the clinic: those who did not visit the clinic or who visited the clinic less than 10 times during the study period declined on most measures. | Study targeted HIV positive HPs suffering from mental illness. However, more visits were made for problems other than mental health, such as medical care, social services, and addiction treatment |
| Author . | Outreach setting . | Number of patients . | Numbers of visits . | Rate of appointment attendance . | Rates of treatment completion . | Suboptimal population reached . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bajis et al.53 | Hostel | 202 | 49% patients positively screened for hepatitis C virus (HCV) accepted direct-acting antiviral therapy (DAT), but 38% of these did not attend follow-up appointment | 33% patients with “significant liver fibrosis” commenced DAT, compared to 61% of those with “no/mild liver fibrosis” | ||
| Daly et al.38 | Homeless hostels, open access day centers for HPs | 204 | 51% attended follow-up appointments | 18% patients completed treatment as judged by dentist. | ||
| Of the 51% that did attend, 71% made first contact at an outreach session. 85% of all appointments were drop-in | ||||||
| Elissen et al.57 | Day shelters, night shelters, welfare shelters | 75 | Patients visited the outreach service 8.8 times/year on average (2.2 times every 3 months). This is in comparison to fewer than 2 visits/year a Dutch homeless person would visit a mainstream GP practice. | 58% patients who accessed this outreach GP service were registered with it already (as opposed to first time visitors) | ||
| Lowrie et al.52 | Homeless hostels, homeless day centers, soup kitchens, charities | 52 | 85% patients attended appointment after initial visit | |||
| O’Toole et al.58 | Homeless shelter, homeless drop-in centers, soup kitchen lines, social service agencies | 185 | Model that included both personal health assessment/brief intervention and clinic orientation significantly encouraged more visits (+88.7% patients/6 months) relative to model involving clinic orientation only (+80%/6 months), personal assessment/brief assessment only (+56.4%/6 months), or a model with no extra intervention at all (+37.1%/6 months) | |||
| Roche et al.37 | Hostel | 90% patients visited outreach service >20 times/year | ||||
| Simons et al.44 | Street, other fixed sites | 349 | 99% patients identified as needing treatment. 36.7% did not attend subsequent appointments, and 11.7% were not treated at all | 61% patients completed treatments, taking 1–18 appointments | Dedicated dental clinic (DDS) had higher proportion of patients finish treatment (67% vs. 42%) and a lower proportion quitting after their first appointment (13% vs. 46.2%) than outreach mobile dental clinic (MDS). 34% of DDS patients were homeless compared to 100% of those who used MDS. Overall, MDS patients were younger, less likely to have benefits and more likely to be rough sleepers | |
| Stormon et al.47 | Community organizations for HPs | 76 | 85% of patients attended an appointment after the initial visit. Appointments were more likely to be missed in the afternoon than in the morning | |||
| Stormon et al.39 | Community organization providing services to young HPs | 112 | 57% patients lost to follow-up, even with reminders | 56% of patients completed their treatment | ||
| 34% were drop-in appointments | ||||||
| Stormon et al.59 | Community organizations for HPs | N = 76 (Model 1) N = 66 (Model 2) N = 43 (Model 3) | Making dental appointments in person, directly following screen (Model 1), was the most effective model (84.2% patients attending the appointment). Making appointments through the phone following a screen (Model 2) was less effective (56.1%). Making appointments through a referral scheme without a screen (Model 3) was least effective (29.3%) | |||
| Tommasello et al.48 | Homeless shelter, street, soup kitchens, abandoned buildings, shooting galleries, prisons | 110 (but 91 for 12-month follow-up) | Patients accessed outreach service 28.6 times/year on average (median: 4.1 times). 82.7% returned to complete second part of questionnaire. Patients’ scores on multiple health measures positively correlated with increased visits to the clinic: those who did not visit the clinic or who visited the clinic less than 10 times during the study period declined on most measures. | Study targeted HIV positive HPs suffering from mental illness. However, more visits were made for problems other than mental health, such as medical care, social services, and addiction treatment |
Positive findings are highlighted in light gray, negative findings are highlighted in dark gray.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
