Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Systematic review
  • Open Access

Interventions for preventing or treating malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers: a systematic review

International Journal for Equity in Health201817:8

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0722-3

  • Received: 11 September 2017
  • Accepted: 8 January 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Excessive drinking leads to poor absorption of nutrients and homeless problem-drinkers often have nutritionally inadequate diets. Depletion of nutrients such as vitamin B1 can lead to cognitive impairment, which can hinder efforts to reduce drinking or engage with services. This review aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or treat malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers.

Methods

We systematically searched nine electronic databases and 13 grey literature sources for studies evaluating interventions to improve nutrition in homeless populations, without regional or language restrictions. Screening for inclusion was done in duplicate. One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias, and another checked the extractions. Primary outcomes were nutrition status/deficiency, liver damage, and cognitive function. Secondary outcomes included abstinence, comorbidities, resource use, acceptability and engagement with intervention. Results were synthesised narratively.

Results

We included 25 studies (2 Randomised Controlled Trials; 15 uncontrolled before and after; 7 surveys; 1 case-control). Nine studies evaluated educational and support interventions, five food provision, and three supplement provision. Eight studies evaluated a combination of these interventions. No two interventions were the same, and all studies were at high risk of bias. Nutritional status (intake/ deficiency) were reported in 11 studies and liver function in one.

Fruit and vegetable intake improved with some education and support interventions (n = 4 studies) but not others (n = 2). Vitamin supplements appeared to improve vitamin deficiency levels in the blood (n = 2). Free or subsidised meals (n = 4) and food packs (n = 1) did not always fulfil dietary needs, but were usually considered acceptable by users. Some multicomponent interventions improved nutrition (n = 3) but acceptability varied (n = 3). No study reported cost effectiveness.

Conclusions

The evidence for any one intervention for improving malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers was based on single studies at high risk of bias. Various food and supplement provision interventions appear effective in changing nutritional status in single studies. Educational and multicomponent interventions show improved nutritional behaviour in some studies but not others. Further better quality evidence is required before these interventions can be recommended for implementation. Any future studies should seek the end user input in their design and conduct.

Trial registration

Registered with PROSPERO: CRD42015024247.

Keywords

  • Homeless
  • Alcoholism
  • Alcohol
  • Dependence
  • Problem-drinking
  • Malnutrition
  • Nutrition
  • Micronutrients
  • Thiamine
  • Systematic review
  • Supplements

Background

Problem-drinking is common among homeless people [1, 2]. Homeless people are not just those sleeping rough on the street, but also include the ‘hidden homeless’ staying with friends or family, in hostels or bed and breakfasts, or in other vulnerable housing situations [3]. Problem-drinking is a variably defined term and the concept can refer to alcohol abuse without physical dependence [4, 5] or beyond ‘safe’ social drinking [6], or drinking above recommended levels and having problems in life as a result [7, 8].

Problem-drinkers tend to obtain a large proportion of their energy intake from alcohol [9, 10]. However, an alcohol-rich diet lacks important vitamins and minerals [11] and also reduces the absorption of nutrients by damaging the gut [12]. When left untreated, this can lead to impairment of cognitive, liver, and immune function [1316]. Homeless people are at risk of being malnourished due to several factors, such as low income, limited knowledge and choice of food, and lack of cooking and storage facilities [17, 18]. The combined effect of homelessness and problem-drinking increases the risk of malnutrition [19].

Malnutrition costs around £19.6 billion per year to the public taxpayer in England and accounts for 33% of the hospital inpatient costs [20]. In December 2016 the homelessness charity Shelter said a lower-end estimate of the number of homeless in England was 250,000 from official datasets [21]. The number of malnourished individuals in sheltered housing in England is estimated to be 22% higher than that in hospital inpatients [20]. An approach to countering malnutrition is improving the nutritional quality of the food available to the population at risk. This could be achieved by educating people about healthy diet, distribution of nutritious meals or supplements, or advising the providers of food and healthcare how to tackle nutritional deficiencies.

Systematic reviews on interventions that either tackle homelessness or substance abuse in the homeless have been published [2224], but none have addressed nutrition. There are reviews addressing nutrition in housed problem-drinkers [25, 26], however, these will not necessarily be applicable to homeless problem-drinkers. Similarly, nutrition interventions that are in line with NICE guidelines [27] are considered cost effective for addressing malnutrition in the general population [20], but information on cost effective interventions for homeless drinkers is not available for decision makers.

This review aims to bring all these elements together and synthesise evidence on interventions for improving the nutritional status of homeless problem-drinkers [28].

Methods

Inclusion criteria

We included studies of any controlled or uncontrolled studies evaluating an intervention that aimed to improve the nutritional status, or macro- or micro-nutrient deficiencies in any problem-drinkers experiencing homelessness. We used the UK definition of homelessness in this review which includes: sleeping rough (outside); residing in temporary accommodation such as hostels, bed and breakfasts or night shelters; staying on a temporary basis with family or friends (‘sofa surfers’); currently housed people who are at risk of being evicted; and currently housed people who cannot stay because they cannot afford to stay, the home is in a very poor condition or they are subject to violence, abuse or threats in the home [29]. Problem-drinking is a commonly used term with no agreed definition. We therefore included all definitions of problem-drinking, as defined by included study authors [28].

We did not restrict inclusion of studies based on reported outcomes. The primary outcomes of interest for this review were: nutrition status or deficiencies; liver or bone marrow damage; and cognitive function. Secondary outcomes included: mortality; suicide; incidence of acute or chronic gastritis or pancreatitis; quality of life or well-being measures; and abstinence. We also collected process outcomes such as resource use, and engagement with or acceptability of interventions.

We excluded position papers; editorials; commentaries; qualitative studies; interventions solely aimed at improving the housing status of individuals or focused solely on reducing or stopping alcohol intake; institutionalised people; studies where entire communities are homeless (e.g. refugees or occupiers of slums or shanty towns). We also excluded studies on orphans or children in state care if not part of homeless families.

Literature searches and study selection

A search of nine electronic databases and 13 grey literature sources was conducted. References of included studies were screened and authors were contacted to find any additional studies or data. The search was published in the protocol [28] and is up to date until 16th November 2016.

References identified in searches were screened in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Identified relevant papers were read in full and assessed for inclusion in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Experts and homelessness charities were contacted to find unpublished studies and data.

Data extraction

We extracted study details including aim of the study, country, participant characteristics, sample size; outcomes reported; and outcome data including treatment effect estimates, p-values, and confidence intervals. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion (with a third reviewer where necessary). Where data were unclear, we attempted to contact the authors for clarification.

Risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias was assessed as part of data extraction. The Cochrane risk of bias tool [30] was used for the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the criteria listed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group were used for other types of studies [31].

Data synthesis

Meta-analysis was inappropriate because studies were heterogeneous with respect to their populations, interventions, and outcomes. Instead we carried out a narrative synthesis.

We analysed studies by intervention type: education/information and support; food provision; supplement or fortification; multicomponent interventions. The findings were summarized in tables for the main outcomes.

Results

Description of included studies

Results of the search

Electronic searches resulted in 9189 citations. Twenty seven other references were identified in complimentary searches (contacting authors/ organisations, reference screening). In addition, we identified two further studies through contacts with subject experts [32, 33] but the authors did not provide sufficient information to assess eligibility to date. We included 25 studies reported in 37 articles / reports and excluded 257 papers (web appendix). The selection process and reasons for exclusion are shown in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram of the review process

Included studies

Of the 25 studies included, the majority (n = 12) were from the USA [3445], and the rest were geographically diverse. Table 1 provides the characteristics of all included studies. Two studies [34, 41] were RCTs, both from the USA; fifteen were uncontrolled before and after (UBA) studies [3537, 39, 40, 43, 44, 4653]; seven were surveys [38, 42, 45, 5457]; and one was a case-control study using a historical control sample [58].
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Study

Location

Study design

Participants

Intervention

Comparison

Primary outcomes reporteda

N

Inclusion criteria

Recruitment

Homeless type (shelter/ rough sleeper)

Heavy drinkers

   

Educational information or support interventions

 Rusness 1993

USA

UBA

7

Homeless women at a shelter

Shelter

Shelter

NR

Biweekly classes focused on nutrition information, shopping and cooking skills

No control group

Nutritional status

 Hinton 2001

UK

UBA

18

Residents at the homeless shelter

A homeless shelter

Shelter dwellers

NR

a session on food hygiene and nutrition, a cooking competition

No control group

Nob

 Derrickson 2003

USA

RCT

210

Households at risk of homelessness who requested assistance between January to August 2001

NR, likely from the database of the Salvation Army Family Services Office

At risk households

NR

3-h nutrition workshop

1-h food safety workshop.

Nutritional status

 Heslin 2003

USA

Comparative survey

974

Homeless women of reproductive age in Los Angeles County shelters and meal programs.

Shelters and meal programs

NR, likely all types

NR

case manager assigned to optimise uptake of WIC

Homeless women in WIC without case manager

No

 Helfrich 2006

USA

UBA

32

Self-identify a life skill need, be willing to engage in sessions each week, able to give informed consent and understand English

Shelters/ emergency shelters, transitional/ emergency housing program

Shelter

NR

Life-skills workshops & individual sessions

No control group

No

 Johnson 2009

USA

UBA

50

Long-term residents in the shelter (2 to 6 months), have at least one child residing with her in the shelter, and is enrolled in the shelter’s life skills program

Two homeless shelters

Shelter

NR

Nutrition education classes

No control group

Nutritional status

 Bonevski 2012

Australia

UBA

6

>  18 years, English speaking, receiving accommodation support from the participating homeless centre

A non-government homelessness outreach centre

NR, likely shelter

58%

Telephone personal counselling on health

No control group

Nutritional status

 Rustad 2013

USA

UBA

118

English-speaking, low-income women living in the Minneapolis/ St Paul area

Soup kitchens, grocery stores, Laundromats, food shelves, and homeless shelters

NR, likely shelter or in transition

NR

3 nutrition and health education sessions

No control group

Nutritional status

 Barbour 2016

Australia

UBA

5

Young person engaged with case management services in the community agency, with an interest in eating healthier and improving their cooking skills

Agencies helping homeless youth

Crisis accommodation, sleeping rough and couch-surfing

NR

Food literacy programme, participants engaged in a 3-h group interactive session over 8 weeks

Daily recommended values DRVs for males of age 19–50 years

Nutritional status

Fortification / Supplement Interventions

 Darnton-Hill 1986

Australia

Comparative Survey

106

Quasi random selection: the first three attendees of the homeless shelter/clinic; first person sitting left of the entrance plus two more at the day centre

Homeless shelter, day centre, and a clinic

NR, Likely shelter and rough sleepers

70%

Men taking oral multivitamin

Not taking vitamins

Nutritional status

 Drijver 1993

Netherlands

UBA

9

Almost daily alcohol consumption for past 5 years; average use of 8 E (80 g) alcohol per day; age 20–65 years; no vitamin supplements in the past month; thiamine level < 110 nmol

Homeless houses and outpatient facilities for alcoholics

NR, likely all types

100% (all drinking > 5 years, 80 g or more /day)

Single or weekly Intramuscular injection of combined 200 mg thiamine, 100 mg pyridoxine, 1000 ng cyanocobalamin

No control group

Nutritional status

 Darmon 2009

France

Repeat Survey

130

Men attending any of the 8 emergency shelters in Paris (3 night shelters and 5 food aid day centres)

Emergency shelters

NR, Likely shelter and rough sleepers

NR, likely majority

Fortified chocolate spread distribution

No control group

No

Food provision interventions

 Garden 2013

Russia

Case (historical) control

142

All homeless patients with tuberculosis referred to a St. Petersburg’s Tuberculosis dispensary

Tuberculosis dispensary

NR, likely all types

45% (registered alcoholics)

Daily food packs including canned meat, bread, butter, egg and soup with cream, juice, tea and yoghurt (2000 kcal)

Homeless treated at the tuberculosis dispensary in previous years

No

 Murakami 2013

Brazil

UBA

315

Low income people (elderly, unemployed, homeless and itinerant) who have been to the restaurant ≥3 time per week

NR

NR, likely all types

NR

Low cost meals available at restaurants

No control group

Nutritional status

 Villena 2013

Spain

Survey

50

Clients coming to the meal provision centre

Community kitchen

NR, likely all types

NR

Evaluating five community kitchen menus

No control group

No

 Pelham-Burn 2014

UK

Survey

16

Clients coming to a meal provision centre

The lounge area / front desk of the meal provision centre

NR, likely all types

NR

Taste testing 12 lunch dishes.

No control group

No

 Allen 2014

Australia

UBA

78

Rooming house residents, homeless persons and others deemed eligible for entry to the project

Café Meals project database North Yarra Community Health

All types

19% alcohol dependent

Providing clients a subsidy that entitles them to one meal per day at one of four local cafés

No control group

Nutritional status

Multicomponent interventions

 Wiecha 1993

USA

Comparative Survey

77

Homeless families without overt substance abuse or emotional problems with a child under 6 placed by the public welfare in temporary accommodation

Shelters and meal programs

Transitional homeless

NR

Kitchen facilities without food support (shelter) versus facilities & food support (shelter)

No kitchen facilities or food support (hotels)

Nutritional status

 Tarasuk 1994

Canada

UBA

49

Homeless adult attenders of an inner city drop in centre

Drop in centre for homeless adults

All types

NR

Three sequential interventions: 1) weekly cooking classes; 2)making the centres’ kitchen available for use to street-living; 3)communal cooking and dining

No control group

No

 Hamm 1999

USA

UBA

31

families in transition- who are temporarily living in shelters, transitional housing or with friends/family

Homeless shelters, soup kitchens, transitional housing, nurseries and day-care centres and family support centres

Transitional homeless

NR

Group nutrition education classes, health checks and food pack vouchers useable at specified stores

Non-homeless WIC participants

No

 Stewart 2009

Canada

UBA

56

Homeless or in transition homeless youth

An employment programme and drop-in centres

All types

34% sought counselling for alcohol/ drugs

Weekly support groups (help with homework, course or job finding, recreational activity, meal, transport)

No control group

No

 Richards 2011

USA

Comparative Survey

11,181

Homeless pregnant women with complete data in the PRAMS database

PRAMS database

All types

NR

WIC homeless women

Non WIC homeless women

No

 Kadoura 2014

USA

UBA

25

Homeless families with at least one child at the shelter school. Speak English or Spanish.

Homeless shelter

Shelter

60% parents reported drug and alcohol use substance abuse

10 two-hour sessions, including physical activity, education/training, and a ‘healthy dinner’

Non concurrent national data

Nutritional status

 Grazioli 2015

USA

UBA

6

Homeless drinkers, with a disability; homeless for at least 1 year or on 4 or more separate occasions in the past 3 years; aged 21–65 years

2 community-based agencies

NR, likely all types

100%

Safer-drinking strategies: treatment with extended-release naltrexone and harm-reduction counselling

No control group

Liver function

 Kendzor 2016

USA

RCT

32

≥18 years of age; willing+ able to attend all visits; > 6th grade literacy level; able to walk; resident of the transitional shelter for ≤2 months.

One shelter

Shelter dweller

NR

Newsletters, fruit/veg provision & pedometers/ walking goals.

No Intervention: Paid assessment-only

Nutritional status

Kcal kilo calories, N number of participants analysed, NR not reported, PRAMS Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System project for CDC, USA, RCT randomised controlled trial, UBA uncontrolled before after study, WIC The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children in the USA. a Primary outcomes of the review that were reported in the study. b This means that the study did not measure or report any of the primary outcomes of this review

Studies varied widely in sample size from 5 participants [53] to 128,365 [42], with a median of 50. Most studies (n = 17) included less than 100 participants. The total number of participants included in this review is 131,054. Most studies (n = 9) did not report on type of homelessness. Six included shelter dwelling participants only [37, 3941, 43, 50] while no study included just rough sleeping participants. Problem-drinking was not always defined. Only two studies provided a clear definition of problem-drinking as more than 80 g alcohol intake per session or per day [46, 56], while other studies used terms such as ‘alcoholics’, ‘alcohol dependency’, ‘overt alcohol problem’, ‘drinking at risky levels’, or ‘seeking counselling for alcohol’. Proportion of problem-drinkers in the study population also varied (median 45%, IQR 26.5% – 64%) across studies that reported this information.

Interventions assessed in included studies were grouped into four broad categories based on the different approaches to addressing malnutrition:
  1. 1.

    Education, information or support

     
  2. 2.

    Supplements (including vitamin injections or tablets, or fortified food products)

     
  3. 3.

    Food provision (including hot meals or food rations)

     
  4. 4.

    Multicomponent interventions, where studies combined more than one of the above approaches

     

Educational, information, and support interventions were the most common (n = 9) [34, 3739, 43, 44, 50, 53]. These included motivational interviewing with nutrition information over the phone [50], a one-off lecture [48], interactive group workshops [34, 37, 43], and full curriculums on nutrition and diet [39, 44, 53]. Three studies assessed the effect of supplements and fortification. These included oral or injectable multivitamin supplements [46, 54] and a vitamin-fortified chocolate paste [56]. Five studies tested food provision interventions [51, 52, 55, 57, 58] ranging from prepared meals provided within organisations [55, 57] and access to prepared meals at specified cafes [51, 52] to daily food packages given to clients at a tuberculosis clinic [58]. Multicomponent interventions were assessed in eight studies [35, 36, 4042, 45, 47, 48]. The combination of interventions included nutrition counselling on harm reduction (e.g. to eat before drinking) with naltrexone detoxing [35], provision of education and kitchen facilities [47], provision of food along with kitchen facilities [45], education sessions with food and physical activity [40, 41], support sessions, recreational activities along with transport tickets, and free meals [49], Women, Infants and Children (WIC) programme [42], and addition of group nutrition education, health checks, and food pack vouchers to the WIC programme [36].

Risk of bias in included studies

All studies were considered to be at a high risk of bias (Fig. 2). In the two RCTs the sequence generation and concealment of allocation were both rated ‘unclear’. None of the studies reported attempts to adequately prevent knowledge of allocation to intervention (blinding) either for participants, providers or outcome assessors. Only two [41, 43] out of the 25 studies adequately addressed incomplete outcome data in their analyses. The majority of the studies (n = 19) were also judged to be at high risk for the knowledge of allocated intervention to have affected data collection (based on Cochrane EPOC criteria) [31].
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Risk of bias in included studies

Findings

Primary outcomes

Nutritional status

Nutritional status measures were reported in 13 studies [34, 3941, 4346, 5054]. Of these, three studies reported micronutrient deficiency in blood samples [43, 46, 54] and ten reported on nutritional intake [34, 3941, 44, 45, 5053].

Education, information or support interventions

Educational sessions of varying intensity and duration were assessed in four studies [34, 39, 44, 53]. One involved motivational telephone interviewing [50], one was a single session on food hygiene and nutrition along with a cooking competition [49], and one involved life skill workshops [37]. One study assigned a case manager to provide information and support to optimise the uptake of the Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC [38]. Most of these were aimed at change in nutritional intake [34, 39, 43, 44, 50, 53]. The studies varied in design (one RCT, others uncontrolled before after studies) and outcome assessments (attempts to increase intake, frequency, or amount of intake). The effects were not consistent across studies, however, the majority indicate that education and support interventions could contribute to improved nutritional behaviour, i.e. eating healthier food (Table 2).
Table 2

Primary outcomes in included studies

Study

Design/ duration

N

Outcome

Findings

Direction of effect / interpretation

Education, information or support

 Rusness 1993

UBA/ 1 month

7

Number with Anaemia (%)

3 (43%)

Unclear if this is due to nutrition education classes: no pre-test values; 1 month study

Number with Hypalbuminaemia (%)

1 (14%)

Eating right skill score- food frequency data (Mean change)

“One third higher than pre test scores”

Educating shelter living women in healthy eating improved nutritional intake

Numbers of women maintaining family targeted diet behaviour (%)

6 (86%)

 Derrickson 2003 (RCT)

RCT/ 1 month

210

Mean (SD) intake of fruit servings per day in compared groups post intervention

Intervention = 6.6 (7.5) Control = 4.5 (4.8)

Nutrition workshop increased average fruit and vegetable intake

Mean (SD) intake of vegetable servings per day in compared groups post intervention

Intervention = 8.3 (7.8) Control = 6.3 (6.2)

 Johnson 2009

UBA/ 10 months

50

Proportion who ate more fruit and vegetables compared to baseline

19%

Nutrition education classes made more people eat fruit and vegetable and yogurt, and =avoid carbohydrate

Proportion who ate more yogurt compared to baseline

3%

Proportion who tried to limit carb intake compared to baseline

22%

Mean (SD) of fruit servings eaten daily

Pre-test = 0.83 (0.71) Post-test = 0.7 (0.65)

Nutrition education classes decreased mean fruit intake and increased carbohydrate intake

Mean (SD) servings of bread, cereal, pasta, and rice (eaten) daily

Pre-test = 1.44 (1.16) Post-test = 1.83 (1.29)

 Bonevski 2012

UBA/ 1.5 months

6

Proportion who tried to eat more fruit N (%)

4(66%)

Intervention increased attempts to eat fruit and vegetable

Proportion who tried to eat more vegetable N (%)

6 (100%)

 Rustad 2013

UBA/ 1.5 months

118

Mean (SD) of fruit serving intake

Pre-test = 1.3 (1.3) Post-test = 1.6 (1.4)

Nutrition and health education sessions increased fruit and vegetable intake

Mean (SD) of vegetable serving intake

Pre-test = 1.5 (1.3) Post-test = 1.9 (1.5)

 Barbour 2016

UBA/ 6 months

5

Mean (range) fruit servings eaten/ day (compared to reference Daily recommended values)

Pre-test = 0.8 (0, 2.2) Post-test = 0.4 (0.0, 1.0)

Food literacy programme decreased mean fruit intake and mean diet quality score.

Mean (range) vegetable servings eaten/ day (compared to reference Daily recommended values)

Pre-test = 2.7 (0.0, 11.9) Post-test = 3.6 (0.0, 12.0)

Intervention increased mean vegetable, iron, vitamin C, folate, calcium, and total energy intake

Mean (range) intake of Folate (B9) mg/day

Pre-test = 256 (211, 272) Post-test = 309 (108, 551)

Mean (range) intake of Calcium mg/day

Pre-test = 655 (365, 998) Post-test = 771 (423, 1367)

Mean (range) intake of Iron mg/day

Pre-test = 9.9 (6.6, 14.4) Post-test = 10.4 (5.3, 15.9)

Mean (range) vitamin C intake mg/24 h

Pre-test = 67 (10, 159) Post-test = 72 (0, 143)

Mean (range) diet quality score (max 100)

Pre-test = 45 (38, 61) Post-test = 41 (27, 60)

Mean (range) daily energy intake kJ

Pre-test = 7981 (2574, 11,384) Post-test = 10,244 (6321, 15,152)

Supplement provision

 Darnton-Hill 1986

Comparative survey/ 24 months

106

% deficient in vitamin B1

NV gp = 45 V gp = 25

Oral vitamin supplements reduced the number of people with vitamin deficiency

% deficient in vitamin B6

NV gp = 63 V gp = 21

% deficient in vitamin C

NV gp = 29 V gp = 10

% deficient in vitamin B12

NV gp = 0 V gp = 0

% deficient in folate (B9)

NV gp = 80 V gp = 49

% deficient in iron

NV gp = 12 V gp = 15

% deficient in zinc

NV gp = 25 Vgp = 25

Mean (SD) levels of TPP%

NV gp = 15.3 (10.5) V gp = 10.5 (9.9)

Oral vitamin supplements don’t always improve group mean levels of vitamins

Mean (SD) levels of vitamin B6 P5P%

NV gp = 57 (26.6) V gp = 36.2(31.4)

Mean (SD) levels of vitamin C μmol/L

NV gp = 34.9 (16.2) V gp = 72.6 (35.2)

Mean (SD) levels of serum Folate ng/ml

NV gp = 3.6 (4.0) V gp = 5.2 (4.0)

Mean (SD) levels of vitamin B 12 pmol/L

NV gp = 341 (203) V gp = 433 (223)

 Drijver 1993

UBA/ NR

9

Mean Tk activity increase (units)

Single injection: Before = 9.6; day 14 = 11.8

Multivitamin injection keeps vitamin levels up for 14 days.

Weekly injection: Before = 10.2; day7 = 12; day21 = 11.2; day35 = 12

Mean TDP effect (%)

Single injection: Before = 18; day 14 = 9

Weekly injection: Before = 17; day7 = 3; day21 = 5; day 35 = 5

Food provision

 Murakami 2013

UBA/ NR

315

% of Clients eating below recommended energy intake

79.0

The hot meals do not fulfil energy needs for most participants, and even though provide a high fibre diet, still contribute to higher than recommended fat and saturate intake in many participants.

Mean (SD) 24 h Energy intake kcal

948.55 (108.75)

Proportion with above average fibre intake

62.9%

Proportion with saturated fat above the recommended levels

22%

Proportion with cholesterol intake above the recommended levels

41%

 Allen 2014

UBA/ 12 months

78

Proportion eating more frequently and gaining weight

Numbers not reported: “many clients eat more frequently, and experience positive weight gain”

A subsidy to have one meal per day n may increase food intake

Multicomponent interventions

 Kendzor 2016

RCT/ 1 month

32

Mean (cups) vegetable and fruit intake

Intervention = 3.56; controls =2; MD = 1.5 cups more in intervention at 4 week follow up

Newsletters, fruit/vegetables & pedometers with walking goals are able to increase fruit and vegetable intake

 Wiecha 1993

Comparative survey/ 9 months

77

Mothers’ Mean (mg) Vitamin B6 intake per 1000 kcal

Kitchen facilities with or without food support (shelter group) = 0.68; no facilities or food(hotels group) = 0.55

Provision of full kitchen facilities with or without added food support can increase intake of important micronutrients but not total protein or energy intake for families

Mothers’ Mean (mg) Vitamin C intake per 1000 kcal

Kitchen facilities with or without food support (shelter group) = 61; no facilities or food(hotels) group =41

Mothers’ Mean (g) protein intake per 1000 kcal

Kitchen facilities with or without food support (shelter group) = 35; no facilities or food(hotels) group =33

Mothers’ Mean Energy (kcal) intake per 1000 kcal

Kitchen facilities with or without food support (shelter group) = 1980; no facilities or food(hotels) group =2016

 Kadoura 2014

UBA/ 1 month

25

Mean change in frequency of fruit and vegetable intake (Cohen’s D)

0.56

Family physical activity, education/training, and a ‘healthy dinner ‘increased both amount and frequency of fruit and vegetable intake

Mean change in amount of fruit and vegetable intake (Cohen’s D)

0.87

 Grazioli 2015

UBA/ 3 months

6

AST levels median (IQR) units

Baseline = 64.5 (34.5, 95.5), follow up = 60 (29.25, 90.5), Wilcoxon signed rank test = −0.77

Detoxification with naltrexone and harm-reduction counselling with a focus on better diet habits led to no change in liver function tests post intervention

ALT levels median (IQR) units

Baseline = 40.5 (30.25, 51.5), follow up = 32 (21.5, 56.75), Wilcoxon signed rank test = − 0.7

ASTaspartate transaminase, ALT alanine transaminase, B1 thiamine, B2 riboflavin, B3 niacin, B5 pantothenic acid,B6 pyridoxine, B7 biotin, B9 folic acid, B12 cobalamins, C ascorbic acid, g gram, gp group, kcal kilocalories, kJ kilojoules, L litre, MD mean difference, mg milligram, mmol millimoles, nmol nanomoles, μmol micromoles, N number of participants, NR not reported, NV no vitamin, pmol picomoles, P5P pyridoxal 5 phosphate, RCT randomised controlled trial, SD standard deviation, Tk transketolase, TDP thiamine diphosphate, TPP thiamine pyrophosphate, UBA uncontrolled before and after study, V vitamin

Supplement provision interventions

The oral [54] and injectable [46] multivitamin supplements were effective in lowering blood indictors of deficiency (Table 2). However, no longer term health or disease outcomes were measured.

Food provision interventions

One study [51] reported on a large-scale state supported intervention providing healthy meals at designated cafes and diners. The authors reported energy intake to be below recommended levels for clients eating there daily. One study providing food subsidy for meals at a local cafe [52] reported that people ate more frequently, had weight gain and learnt food preparation skills and healthy eating habits, but quantitative data were not reported (Table 2).

Multicomponent interventions

Nutrition intake changes were reported in three studies [40, 41, 45]. All indicated a beneficial effect of the multicomponent interventions on healthier food intake (Table 2).

Liver function

Only one study [35] evaluating a multicomponent intervention (naltrexone detoxing and harm reduction counselling) reported liver function tests (mean aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase levels) for the intervention group only, and found no difference between before and after measurements (Table 2).

Secondary outcomes

Change in drinking behaviour was reported in three studies [35, 40, 49]. Several studies assessed some aspects of success of implementation of their intervention/ programme, such as the acceptability of the intervention [35, 5557], or attendance and intervention/ programme completion [36, 41, 48, 58]. Cost of interventions was reported in four studies [51, 54, 56, 58]. However, no study reported cost effectiveness analyses.

Drinking behaviour

Three studies, all assessing multicomponent interventions reported this outcome. Kadoura [40] reported a small non-significant decrease (Cohen’s d = 0.15; p = 0.15) in mean alcohol consumption compared to baseline in the intervention group of homeless families. Stewart et al. [49] reported 26% fewer participants drinking at the end compared to the mid-point assessment. Grazioli et al. [35] indicated the intervention (naltrexone + nutritional counselling) may lead to more drinking.

Measures of implementation success

Eight studies reported some measure of implementation success (see Web appendix for details). Poor attendance (0–22%) was seen for an intervention using education sessions with a cooking competition at a shelter [48]. Higher treatment completion rates were seen in a tuberculosis clinic for homeless with a daily food pack provision [58]. In taste testing carrot cake, beef burger, and apple crumble were liked the most in a study in the UK [57], while a study in Spain [55] found that dairy, fruits and beans were favoured, however both reported a low preference for fish. There was high acceptability for the vitamin fortified chocolate spread packets [56].

High attendance rates and perceived effectiveness were observed in a study that provided education, food provision and goal setting [41]. In contrast, low acceptability and perceived effectiveness were seen in a study of naltrexone detoxing with counselling for better eating [35]. Group nutrition education and health checks part of the WIC intervention were acceptable to homeless families. However, food voucher uptake and use was low [36] and reasons for this low uptake of vouchers were: transiency, loss of the identification documents, loss of vouchers, lack of transport, and lack of time. One third of these families reported difficulty carrying a large amount of groceries, and 23% did not think the food met their needs fully.

Cost and resource use

No studies reported cost effectiveness or provided enough data to assess cost effectiveness. Five studies reported cost and resource outcomes for the interventions tested [47, 51, 54, 56, 58] (Table 3). One other study [57] recorded information on costs of meals provided but did not report this data in the paper. The table shows that although some of the cost information dates as far back as the 1980s and the comparisons are indirect, vitamin tablet supplementation could be cheaper than other interventions.
Table 3

Cost and resource use in included studies

Study

Intervention

Outcome Measure and Findings (USD)a

 Darnton-Hill 1986

Vitamin C, B complex, and thiamine regimen

Cost / day AUD (USD): 0.168 (0.12)

B complex capsule

Cost / day AUD (USD): 0.085 (0.06)

Thiamine tablet 50 mg

Cost / day AUD (USD): 0.035 (0.03)

Vitamin C tablet 500 mg

Cost / day AUD (USD): 0.048 (0.03)

 Darmon 2009

Vitamin fortified chocolate spread plus street food

Cost of one RDA diet EUR(USD): 3.64 (5.07)

Food aid meal along with street food

Cost of one RDA diet EUR(USD): 4.78 (6.6)

Street food alone

Cost of one RDA diet EUR(USD): 5.6 (7.7)

 Garden 2013

2000 kcal day-food pack

Average cost USD: 1.3–1.5

 Murakami 2013

Breakfast (400 kcal)

Cost of one meal R$ (USD): 0.5 (0.15)

Lunch (1200 kcal)

Cost of one meal R$ (USD): 1.0 (0.31)

 Tarasuk 1994

Communal cooking and dining in shelter kitchen

Staff needed to co-ordinate: 1 person

aUSD values (In brackets) when the reported cost values were in other currencies calculated using historical exchange rates for the respective publication year’s January

Other outcomes (detailed in web appendix) reported in included studies were life skills [37, 53], infant health and health visits by mothers [42, 43, 49, 50], physical activity [41, 50], access to shelter and food [38], and social outcomes such as loneliness and enjoyment [47, 49].

Discussion

Summary of findings

To our knowledge, this is the first review of the evidence-base on the effectiveness and costs of interventions for malnutrition in the homeless problem-drinking population. We included 25 studies assessing four broad categories of interventions. We found that in terms of nutritional status, educational interventions may increase fruit and vegetable intake, but this was not consistent across studies. A fortnightly multivitamin injection or daily multivitamin oral tablet could prevent vitamin deficiencies. A daily multivitamin fortified chocolate spread pack was acceptable but evidence of effectiveness was not reported. Free or subsidised meals or daily food packs also appeared acceptable but did not always fulfil adult energy needs. Three multicomponent intervention studies assessed nutritional status and all showed improved nutritional intake. In terms of implementation success or acceptability, provision of food or kitchen facilities were usually well received, but education in combination with detox or a cooking competition, or food vouchers that required money and time to be redeemed were not favoured.

All studies were at high risk of bias. Many studies did not have control groups. Particular problems with interpreting data from uncontrolled studies are susceptibility to confounding (including seasonality) and regression to the mean [59]. There were two RCTs and although these were at high risk of bias too, they are more reliable than the other studies because of randomization. Both reported higher intake of fruits and vegetables in the intervention group, one providing a 3 h workshop on resource management and diet [34] and the other providing newsletters, fruits, vegetables, and pedometers along with walking goals [41]. These interventions could be implemented in shelter settings similar to those in the respective studies.

It was not possible to estimate cost effectiveness as none of the studies reported cost-effectiveness analysis. Limited data on intervention costs from four studies on food or supplement provision interventions indicate the costs of daily oral vitamin supplements to be lower than that of meals. However, this information without the benefits associated with each is of limited use when choosing between competing interventions, especially when these were not directly or concurrently compared.

There were no assessments of cognitive function in the included studies. Although this may be difficult to measure accurately, it is an important outcome which can affect people’s ability to optimally use healthcare and housing services, which may require learning and remembering new things [60]. Long term outcomes in health are also missing from the literature. These outcomes can be useful for decision makers in establishing whether the interventions provided the intended benefit. Nutritional outcomes reported across studies were ill-defined and variably measured. There are known issues in this area of research associated with use of convenient measures, transiency of the population, and the extreme variation in food intake dependent on donations or the opening days/ h of soup-kitchens or similar facilities [61, 62]. Future studies in this population should use more rigorous measures of nutritional change [62].

Nine studies reported use of incentives (cash or gifts) to increase data collection and uptake of intervention. This, along with high dropouts, suggests that effectiveness may not be entirely attributable to the intervention.

Strengths and limitations

Given that we expected limited evidence on the question, not using language restrictions and using an extensive grey literature search was a key strength of our review. This strategy was likely the reason we were able to identify a relatively large number of studies. We supplemented this exhaustive search with rigorous methods of inclusion and appraisal of the research identified. This makes our findings reliable. Another strength of this review lies in its inclusivity. This allowed for the unrestricted inclusion of and, consequently, the exploration of the range of interventions evaluated. The results of this review can therefore inform the implementation of these interventions to improve the health of homeless problem-drinkers in similar settings. No two studies of similar design assessed the same intervention and outcome and thus an expected limitation of this review was that results of the studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis. Thus the interpretation requires caution, especially considering the limitations in study quality. We therefore analysed interventions in broad categories and avoided subgrouping of results further.

Applicability of evidence

There are still lessons to be learnt from this limited evidence base and implications for policy and research, although caution is required when implementing this evidence.

Most interventions were set in shelters and inclusion often restricted to shelter dwellers. No study assessed an intervention for rough sleepers alone. This group often gets excluded from such research studies due to their transient location, yet they may have more complex needs [61], so their inclusion in future research would be valuable. Although some shelters do, not all will accept rough sleepers who are heavy alcohol or drug users [45, 63]. Rough sleepers with drinking or drug problems also sometimes avoid engaging with shelters [64]. Healthcare access points, such as general practices offering primary health care services to street drinkers may be a more inclusive setting to reach this subgroup [61]. Even when these are free at point of delivery, it could mean uneven reach where the most vulnerable homeless drinkers may be unaware of or unable to reach these services.

Although, education and training can raise awareness in and provide information to homeless people to make healthier food choices, it is harder for homeless people to make these healthy choices when they have no kitchen, cupboard, or fridge, and move residence frequently [39, 44]. In addition, vitamin B1 deficiency with heavy drinking over time leads to cognitive impairment [65]. Once in this state, any counselling or health promotion efforts to bring about behaviour change would be less likely to work [66]. Thiamine intake can often reverse this impairment [67]. Alcohol and/or drug support services often pursue harm reduction interventions (e.g. needle exchange) alongside interventions to reduce substance abuse [68]. These services could also consider providing nutritional interventions for preventing or treating malnutrition in the homeless, heavy drinking population.

Our findings suggest that consideration for local taste preferences is important in meal provision services. However, only one study [58] reported developing the content of the food rations according to local food tradition. Meal provision was an acceptable intervention although evidence suggested that it may not always fulfil energy needs. Meal services require a full kitchen and catering staff to serve meals every day. In addition, there is evidence that nutritional value of these meals may be constrained by resources and prioritising a satisfying meal over nutritional value by both providers and users [57]. No included study compared different types of food and/or supplement provision interventions and this should be assessed in future for comparative benefit and resources use.

Provision of kitchen facilities in two studies appeared to be effective in improving nutritional intake. It led to a reduction in vitamin deficiencies in one study in homeless families [45]. The other study [47] that made kitchens available to street-living homeless as well as the shelter participants reported that the participants enjoyed cooking, and the use of the kitchen facilities increased rapidly. This indicates that the lack of these facilities might be a key factor in malnutrition among homeless drinkers [18]. It also suggests that experiential learning may be more effective than giving nutritional advice in this client group [44].

It seems that an educational intervention with a cooking competition proposed by the shelter staff alone had low uptake [48], but an intervention developed with service user input, involving education, kitchen facility and communal dining was popular [47]. Involving the population in research can increase participation rates and user controlled research is encouraged in public health and social care research [69]. Considering the difficulty in accessing homeless drinkers, their involvement in a project aimed at their health can improve uptake and measuring of the impact and continuity of service later. This would also give choice to a marginalised population.

Nine studies included only homeless women with children or homeless families [34, 36, 3840, 4245]. These studies may therefore be less representative of the typical demographics of the homeless problem-drinking population in urban settings in Europe [70] and North America [71, 72] which is largely single male. Male homeless population was included in two studies exclusively [54, 56] and five others had more than 80% men [35, 46, 47, 55, 58]. Gender differences have been seen in the homeless regarding use of health services [73, 74]. Learning the composition and preferences of the target population before setting up an intervention and tailoring the intervention to the local demographics is therefore warranted. This will ensure optimal uptake and consequently the likelihood of intervention success.

The services for homeless problem drinking people are likely varied across the globe. In the USA, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is responsible for reducing homelessness [75]. It is an independent agency of the federal government designed to coordinate a response in partnership with state and local governments, and community groups. In the UK services to the homeless are provided by local councils under the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Governments [76] and by charities such as Crisis, Pathway, Salvation Army, and Shelter. This means that services and their structure vary across regions. In the UK, these services are also over stretched in the face of current political and economic situation and the housing crisis since 2008, which means fewer resources are available to address malnutrition for problem drinking subgroups of homeless people.

With limited available funds, the variations in services across settings and locations can serve as an alternative to a traditional comparative study. This can identify the most beneficial interventions for a specific outcome and/or setting. Thus in future, in addition to randomized designs, natural experiments such as those designed around a change in local or regional policy, a practice within a certain hospital or a charity organisation, can provide evidence that is more applicable in terms of effectiveness. These findings should then be reported in an accessible location and format to reduce publication bias.

Conclusions

With the high risk, single study data on any of the studied interventions we cannot conclude which intervention may be most effective or cost effective for tackling malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers. Nevertheless, several interventions appeared able to change nutrition related behaviour in a given setting and were acceptable. Decision makers need to carefully consider which of these interventions would translate well into their own setting and population for achieving a desired outcome. Including the target population in developing intervention content and delivery may optimise intervention success.

Better quality data and long terms outcomes such as malnutrition levels, health and disease status are also needed. Comparative cost and resource use should be part of any future intervention evaluation.

Abbreviations

ALT: 

Alanine transaminase

AST: 

Aspartate transaminase

B1: 

Thiamine

B12: 

Cobalamins

B2: 

Riboflavin

B3: 

Niacin

B5: 

Pantothenic acid

B6: 

Pyridoxine

B7: 

Biotin

B9: 

Folic acid

C: 

Ascorbic acid

EPOC: 

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care

F: 

Female

G: 

Gram

Gp: 

Group

Hb: 

Haemoglobin

IQR: 

Interquartile range

Kcal: 

Kilocalories

kJ: 

Kilojoules

L: 

Litre

M: 

Male

MD: 

Mean difference

Mg: 

Milligram

Mmol: 

Millimoles

N: 

Number of participants

Nmol: 

Nanomoles

NR: 

Not reported

NV: 

No vitamin

P5P: 

Pyridoxal 5 phosphate

Pmol: 

Picomoles

RCT: 

Randomised controlled trial

SD: 

Standard deviation

TDP: 

Thiamine diphosphate

Tk: 

Transketolase

TPP: 

Thiamine pyrophosphate

UBA: 

Uncontrolled before and after study

V: 

Vitamin

Μmol: 

Micromoles

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

This work was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

JK is partly funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Authors’ contributions

KP, CF, JS, EM, HT and SI designed the study. JK, LM, and TJ contributed to screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments. SI, KP, CF, TJ and JS contributed to narrative synthesis. AR developed and conducted the searches. SI drafted the manuscript and all authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, 9th Floor Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK
(2)
Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
(3)
City Hall, Bristol, BS1 5TR, UK
(4)
Compass Health, The Compass Centre, 1 Jamaica Street, Bristol, BS2 8JP, UK
(5)
The National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions, London, UK
(6)
Bristol Medical School, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

References

  1. Fazel S, Khosla V, Doll H, Geddes J. The prevalence of mental disorders among the homeless in western countries: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e225.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Magura S, Nwakeze PC, Rosenblum A, Joseph H. Substance misuse and related infectious diseases in a soup kitchen population. Subst Use Misuse. 2000;35:551–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Fitzpatrick S, Pawson H, Bramley G, Wilcox S, Watts B. The homelessness monitor: England 2017. In: Homeless monitor. London: Crisis; 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Problem Drinking vs. Alcoholism: What’s the Difference? [https://talbottcampus.com/problem-drinking-vs-alcoholism-whats-the-difference/].
  5. Alcoholism and Problem Drinking [https://patient.info/health/alcoholism-and-problem-drinking].
  6. Social Drinking vs. Problem Drinking [https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=1&contentid=870].
  7. Problem Drinker Defined [http://alcoholrehab.com/alcoholism/problem-drinker-defined/].
  8. What's “at-risk” or “heavy” drinking? [https://www.rethinkingdrinking.niaaa.nih.gov/How-much-is-too-much/Is-your-drinking-pattern-risky/Whats-At-Risk-Or-Heavy-Drinking.aspx].
  9. Coppenrath W. Problems in nutritional status among homeless populations: an introduction. Nutr Bytes. 2001;7. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5hm1p27p#main.
  10. Darmon N, Coupel J, Deheeger M, Briend A. Dietary inadequacies observed in homeless men visiting an emergency night shelter in Paris. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4:155–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Tse C, Tarasuk V. Nutritional assessment of charitable meal programmes serving homeless people in Toronto. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11:1296–305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bode C, Bode JC. Alcohol's role in gastrointestinal tract disorders. Alcohol Health Res World. 1997;21:76–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Victor M. The effects of alcohol on the nervous system: clinical features, pathogenesis, and treatment. In: Lieber CS, editor. Medical and nutritional complications of alcoholism: mechanisms in management. New York: Plenum Publishing Corp; 1992. p. 413–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Leo MA, Rosman AS, Lieber CS. Differential depletion of carotenoids and tocopherol in liver disease. Hepatology. 1993;17:977–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Szabo G. Alcohol's contribution to compromised immunity. Alcohol Health Res World. 1997;21:30–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wijnia JW, Oudman E, van Gool WA, Wierdsma AI, Bresser EL, Bakker J, van de Wiel A, Mulder CL. Severe infections are common in thiamine deficiency and may be related to cognitive outcomes: a cohort study of 68 patients with Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. Psychosomatics. 2016;57:624–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sprake EF, Russell JM, Barker ME. Food choice and nutrient intake amongst homeless people. FASEB J. 2013;27Google Scholar
  18. Coufopoulos A, Mooney K: Food, nutrition and homelessness. Guidance for practitioners. pp. 1–24. London: The Queen's Nursing Institute; 2012:1-24.Google Scholar
  19. Salaspuro M. Nutrient intake and nutritional status in alcoholics. Alcohol Alcohol. 1993;28:85–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Elia M: The cost of malnutrition in England and potential cost savings from nutritional interventions. pp. 96: British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (www.bapen.org.uk) and National Institute for Health Research Southampton biomedical research Centre (www.uhs.nhs.uk/nihr-brc); 2015:96.
  21. Richardson H. More than 250,000 are homeless in England - shelter. In: BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38157410. BBC; 2016.
  22. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ganann R, Krishnaratne S, Ciliska D, Kouyoumdjian F, Hwang SW. Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:638.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Speirs V, Johnson M, Jirojwong S. A systematic review of interventions for homeless women. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22:1080–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hwang SW, Tolomiczenko G, Kouyoumdjian FG, Garner RE. Interventions to improve the health of the homeless - a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:311–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Day E, Bentham PW, Callaghan R, Kuruvilla T, George S. Thiamine for prevention and treatment of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in people who abuse alcohol. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7):CD004033. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004033.pub3.
  26. Sayon-Orea C, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Bes-Rastrollo M. Alcohol consumption and body weight: a systematic review. Nutr Rev. 2011;69:419–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nutrition support for adults: oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition clinical guideline [CG32]. In: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care, editor. Endocrinal, nutritional and metabolic conditions: general and other. London: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care; 2006.Google Scholar
  28. Thorley H, Porter K, Fleming C, Jones T, Kesten J, Marques E, Richards A, Savović J. Interventions for preventing or treating malnutrition in problem drinkers who are homeless or vulnerably housed: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:131.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Legal definition of homelessness [http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/homelessness_-_an_introduction/legal_definition_of_homelessness].
  30. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. 2011.Google Scholar
  31. Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. In: EPOC resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2015.Google Scholar
  32. Amui J. Pathway enquiry. In: Ijaz S, editor. Email response from ‘Pathway, healthcare for homeless People’ on enquiry about any unpublished studies from the organisation; 2017.Google Scholar
  33. Goldman L. Research on nutrition of homeless people. In: Ijaz S, editor. Email from the study author (les Goldman) after learning about our review project; 2017.Google Scholar
  34. Derrickson JP, Buchanan C, Asing GK, Okuma A. Lessons learned from the “spend less. Eat well. Feel better.” program efficacy trial. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2003;35:30–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Grazioli VS, Hicks J, Kaese G, Lenert J, Collins SE. Safer-drinking strategies used by chronically homeless individuals with alcohol dependence. J Subst Abus Treat. 2015;54:63–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamm LA, Holden EW. Providing WIC services to homeless families. J Nutr Educ. 1999;31:224–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Helfrich CA, Aviles AM, Badiani C, Walens D, Sabol P. Life skill interventions with homeless youth, domestic violence victims and adults with mental illness. Occup Ther Health Care. 2006;20:189–207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Heslin KC, Andersen RM, Gelberg L. Case management and access to services for homeless women. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2003;14:34–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson LJ, Myung EH, McCool AC, Champaner EI. Nutrition education for homeless women - challenges and opportunities: a pilot study. J Foodserv Bus Res. 2009;12:155–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Kadoura WE. The brighter future for homeless families and their preschoolers’ program in salt lake city, Utah. Diss Abstr Int. 2014;75:1–114.Google Scholar
  41. Kendzor DE, Allicock M, Businelle MS, Sandon LF, Gabriel KP, Frank SG. Evaluation of a shelter-based diet and physical activity intervention for homeless adults. J Phys Act Health. 2016;14(2):88–97.Google Scholar
  42. Richards R, Merrill RM, Baksh L, McGarry J. Maternal health behaviors and infant health outcomes among homeless mothers: U.S. special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) 2000-2007. Prev Med. 2011;52:87–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rusness BA. Striving for empowerment through nutrition education. J Am Diet Assoc. 1993;93:78–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rustad C, Smith C. Nutrition knowledge and associated behavior changes in a holistic, short-term nutrition education intervention with low-income women. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013;45:490–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiecha JL, Dwyer JT, Jacques PF, Rand WM. Nutritional and economic advantages for homeless families in shelters providing kitchen facilities and food. J Am Diet Assoc. 1993;93:777–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Drijver E, Van Strik R. Influence of intramuscular vitamin-B supplementation on TK activity and TDP-effect in erythrocytes in alcoholics. [Dutch]. TGO - Tijdschrift Ther Geneesmiddel en Onderzoek. 1993;18:132–7.Google Scholar
  47. Tarasuk V, Woolcott L. Food acquisition practices of homeless adults: insights from a health promotion project. J Can Diet Assoc. 1994;55:15–9.Google Scholar
  48. Hinton T, Evans N: Healthy hostels: a guide to promoting health and well-being among homeless people. pp. 46pp. London: Crisis; 2001:46pp.Google Scholar
  49. Stewart M, Reutter L, Letourneau N, Makwarimba E. A support intervention to promote health and coping among homeless youths. Can J Nurs Res. 2009;41:55–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Bonevski B, Baker A, Twyman L, Paul C, Bryant J. Addressing smoking and other health risk behaviours using a novel telephone-delivered intervention for homeless people: a proof-of-concept study. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31:709–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Murakami YCA, Almeida Dos Santos J, De Camargo M, Sandoval T, Freiberg C. Food intake assessment of the ‘bom prato’ project users. Ann Nutr Metab. 2013;63:426–7.Google Scholar
  52. Allen L, O'Connor J, Amezdroz E, Bucello P, Mitchell H, Thomas A, Kleve S, Bernardi A, Wallis L, Palermo C. Impact of the social cafe meals program: a qualitative investigation. Aust J Prim Health. 2014;20:79–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Barbour LR, Ho MYL, Davidson ZE, Palermo CE. Challenges and opportunities for measuring the impact of a nutrition programme amongst young people at risk of food insecurity: a pilot study. Nutr Bull. 2016;41:122–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Darnton-Hill I, Sriskandarajah N, Craig GK, Truswell AS. Vitamin status of homeless men. Proc Nutr Soc Aust. 1986;11:99.Google Scholar
  55. Patino Villena B, Navarro Garcia A, Periago Caston MJ, Rodriguez Tadeo A, Duarte Lopez A, Ros Berruezo G, Gonzalez Martinez-Lacuesta E. Sensory and nutritional evaluation of a municipal service of community kitchen for poor and homeless persons. Ann Nutr Metab. 2013;63:1075.Google Scholar
  56. Darmon N. A fortified street food to prevent nutritional deficiencies in homeless men in France. J Am Coll Nutr. 2009;28:196–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pelham-Burn SE, Frost CJ, Russell JM, Barker ME. Improving the nutritional quality of charitable meals for homeless and vulnerable adults. A case study of food provision by a food aid organisation in the UK. Appetite. 2014;82:131–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Garden B, Samarina A, Stavchanskaya I, Alsterlund R, Ovregaard A, Taganova O, Shpakovskaya L, Zjemkov V, Ridell M, Larsson LO. Food incentives improve adherence to tuberculosis drug treatment among homeless patients in Russia. Scand J Caring Sci. 2013;27:117–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Armstrong R, Waters E, Doyle J. Chapter 21: reviews in health promotion and public health. In: JPT H, editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 (updated march 2011). GS: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
  60. Backer TE, Howard EA. Cognitive impairments and the prevention of homelessness: research and practice review. J Prim Prev. 2007;28:375–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Evans NS, Dowler EA. Food, health and eating among single homeless and marginalized people in London. J Hum Nutr Diet. 1999;12:179–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Seale JV, Fallaize R, Lovegrove JA. Nutrition and the homeless: the underestimated challenge. Nutr Res Rev. 2016;(2):143–151.Google Scholar
  63. Krüsi A, Fast D, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. Social and structural barriers to housing among street-involved youth who use illicit drugs. Health Soc Care Community. 2010;18:282–8.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Diaz R: Street homelessness factsheet. (England S ed. pp. 15. London: Shelter; 2006:15.Google Scholar
  65. Abdou E, Hazell AS. Thiamine deficiency: an update of Pathophysiologic mechanisms and future therapeutic considerations. Neurochem Res. 2015;40:353–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Bernardin F, Maheut-Bosser A, PAILLE F. Cognitive impairments in alcohol-dependent subjects. Front Psychiatry. 2014;5:78.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Day E, Bentham PW, Callaghan R, Kuruvilla T, George S. Thiamine for prevention and treatment of Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in people who abuse alcohol. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD004033.Google Scholar
  68. National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse: Harm reduction strategy – guidance to support adult drug treatment planning and self audit tool – revised guidance for 2009/10 (England PH ed. pp. 1–23. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse,; 2009:1-23.Google Scholar
  69. Turner M, Beresford P. User controlled research its meanings and potential- final report. INVOLVE: Hants; 2005.Google Scholar
  70. Busch-Geertsema V, Benjaminsen L, Hrast M, Pleace N. Extent and profile of homelessness in European member states: a statistical update. In: European observatory on homelessness(EOH) comparative studies on homelessness. FEANTSA’s European Observatory on Homelessness: Brussles; 2014.Google Scholar
  71. Gaetz S, Donaldson J, Richter T, Gulliver T. The state of homelessness in Canada. In: Homeless hub paper; 2013.Google Scholar
  72. Henry M, Watt R, Rosenthal L, Shivji A. The 2016 annual homeless assessment report (AHAR) to congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development: MA, USA; 2016.Google Scholar
  73. DiBlasio FA, Belcher JR. Gender differences among homeless persons: special services for women. Am J Orthop. 1995;65:131–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Health Needs Audit: Health service use among the homeless population [http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/health-needs-audit-explore-data].
  75. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Fact Sheet [https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/usich-fact-sheet].
  76. Department for Communities and Local Government. In: health Do, editor. Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: Department for Health; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement