HHPA evaluation
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A mixed-method impact, economic and process evaluation of how a peer advocacy intervention for people experiencing homelessness in London facilitates access to health care and enables well-being.
IRAS ID
271312
Contact name
Lucy Platt
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 11 months, 31 days
Research summary
The overall aim of this research is to evaluate how and to what extent peer advocacy among people experiencing homelessness in London changes the way people who are homeless use outpatient and emergency services and how it shapes other health and social outcomes (e.g. mental health, drug use and access to drug, alcohol, mental health and other social care services). The research uses participatory research methods. We will employ people with experience of homelessness as peer researchers, as well as inviting others to sit on the advisory group.
The project has four linked components A to D:
Component A uses qualitative methods to understand how peer advocacy works and on what health and social outcomes.
Component B draws on a cohort study to compare how engagement with peer advocates affects homeless peoples’ use of health services. We will conduct a survey of 600 people who are currently homeless, a total of 150 people who work with peer advocates will be matched to 450 individuals who do not pairing individuals on characteristics (sex, age, ethnicity, health status) using propensity score matching. Individuals will be linked to their electronic health records and the CHAIN dataset over a year to see how use of health services differs between those who use peer advocates and those who do not.
Component C is an economic evaluation where we will look at how much the intervention costs, and is cost saving, compared to no intervention in relation to increasing planned use of outpatient services and decreasing use of emergency services and inpatient hospital care.
Component D Drawing on all three components (A-C) and reviewing records collected by Groundswell, we will conduct a process evaluation to understand how the peer advocacy intervention is delivered and who it reaches.
REC name
London - Dulwich Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
19/LO/1468
Date of REC Opinion
20 Sep 2019
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion