Housing Interventions at the Neighborhood Level and Health: A Review of the Evidence

National Center for Healthy Housing, Columbia, Maryland 21044, USA.
Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP (Impact Factor: 1.47). 08/2010; 16(5 Suppl):S44-52. DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181dfbb72
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A panel of subject matter experts systematically reviewed evidence linking neighborhood-level housing interventions, such as housing programs or policies, to health outcomes. One of the 10 interventions reviewed--the Housing Choice Voucher Program--had sufficient evidence for implementation or expansion. The evidence showed that voucher holders are less likely to suffer from overcrowding, malnutrition due to food insecurity, and concentrated neighborhood poverty than non-voucher holders. Of the other reviewed interventions, 2 needed more field evaluation and 7 needed more formative research. None were determined to be ineffective. Although many of the reviewed interventions lacked sufficient evidence for widespread implementation solely based on their health benefits, this evidence review shows that many interventions positively affect other areas of social, economic, and environmental well-being. Efforts to improve neighborhood environments and to maintain and increase the number of affordable housing units are critical to ensuring safe, healthy, and affordable housing for all people in the United States. Given that people of color disproportionately reside in high-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhood-level interventions may be particularly important in efforts to eliminate health disparities.

Download full-text


Available from: Andrés Villaveces, Sep 26, 2015
132 Reads
  • Source
    • "Evidence for long-term effects and the mechanisms by which different interventions or combinations of interventions might lead to positive health outcomes tend also to be absent (Atkinson et al., 2006; Jacobs et al., 2010; Lindberg et al., 2010; Thomson et al., 2006). There are also concerns that regeneration activities may have unintended consequences of social disruption and displacement through gentrification (Fullilove, 2004; Huxley et al., 2004; Lindberg et al., 2010; Paris and Blackaby, 1979). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Urban regeneration can be considered a population health intervention (PHI). It is expected to impact on population health but the evidence is limited or weak, in part due to the difficulties of evaluating PHIs. We explore these challenges using GoWell as a case study. Method: A 10-year evaluation of housing improvement and urban regeneration in 15 deprived areas in Glasgow, Scotland (2005-2015). Results: Challenges faced include: definition and changing nature of the intervention; identifying the recipients of the intervention; and constraints of study design affecting capacity to attribute effects. We have met these challenges by: adapting the evaluation to take account of changing intervention plans and delivery; making pragmatic choices about which populations to focus on for different parts of the study; and taking advantage of delayed delivery of some components to identify controls. Conclusion: Commitment to a long-term evaluation by the Scottish Government and other partners has enabled us to develop a package of studies to investigate health and other outcomes, and the processes of a PHI. GoWell will contribute to the evidence base for interventions focused on tackling the wider determinants of health and help policymakers to be more explicit and realistic about what regeneration might achieve.
    Preventive Medicine 08/2013; 57(6). DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.08.007 · 3.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Subject matter experts systematically reviewed evidence on the effectiveness of specific housing interventions in improving health. The panelists reviewed housing interventions associated with exposure to biological and chemical agents, structural injury hazards, and community-level interventions. Intervention studies were grouped together according to recommendations in the Guide to Community Preventive Services, which identifies similarities in the type of intervention, its delivery and setting, and the target population. Review panelists found that 11 interventions had sufficient evidence of effectiveness, 15 required more field evaluation, 19 needed formative research, and 7 either had no evidence of effectiveness or were ineffective. Although many housing conditions are associated with adverse health outcomes, sufficient evidence now shows that specific housing interventions can improve certain health outcomes. The results of these evidence reviews can inform a robust agenda for widespread implementation and further research. This article highlights the project's research methods and summary findings, and its companion articles detail the evidence reviews for specific housing interventions.
    Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 08/2010; 16(5 Suppl):S5-10. DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181e31d09 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 09/2010; 16(5 Suppl):S1-2. DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181f5241a · 1.47 Impact Factor
Show more