Purpose of review

Singular interventions targeting vulnerable populations of people living with HIV (PLWH) are necessary for reducing new infections and optimizing individual-level outcomes, but extant literature for PLWH who experience homelessness and unstable housing (HUH) has not been compiled. To inform implementation of clinic-based programs that improve care outcomes in this population, we present a synthetic review of key studies examining clinic-based interventions, specifically case management, patient navigation, financial incentives, and the use of mobile technology.

Recent findings

Results from unimodal interventions are mixed or descriptive, are limited by inability to address related multi-modal barriers to care, and do not address major challenges to implementation. Multi-component interventions are needed, but gaps in our knowledge base may limit widespread uptake of such interventions before further data are compiled. Future research evaluating interventions for PLWH experiencing HUH should include implementation outcomes in order to facilitate adaptation across diverse clinical settings.

BACKGROUND:Homelessness and unstable housing (HUH) negatively impact care outcomes for people living with HIV (PLWH). To inform design of a clinic program for PLWH experiencing HUH, we quantified patient preferences and trade-offs across multiple HIV-service domains using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS:We sequentially sampled PLWH experiencing HUH presenting at an urban HIV clinic with missed primary care visit and viremia in the last year to conduct a DCE. Participants chose between two hypothetical clinics varying across five service attributes: care team "get to know me as a person" versus not; receiving $10, $15 or $20 gift cards for clinic visits; drop-in versus scheduled visits; direct phone communication to care team versus front-desk staff; staying 2 versus 20 blocks from the clinic. We estimated attribute relative utility (i.e., preference) using mixed-effects logistic regression and calculated the monetary trade-off of preferred options. RESULTS:Among 65 individuals interviewed, 61% were >40 years-old; 45% white; 77% male; 25% heterosexual; 56% lived outdoors/emergency housing, and 44% in temporary housing. Strongest preferences were for patient-centered care team (β = 3.80; 95%CI 2.57-5.02) and drop-in clinic appointments (β = 1.33; 95%CI 0.85-1.80), with a willingness to trade $32.79 (95%CI 14.75-50.81) and $11.45 (95%CI 2.95-19.95) in gift cards/visit, respectively. CONCLUSION:In this DCE, PLWH-HUH were willing to trade significant financial gain to have a personal relationship with and drop-in access to their care team rather than clinic proximity and gift cards. These findings informed Ward 86's "POP-UP" program for PLWH-HUH and can inform "Ending the HIV Epidemic" efforts.

Background/setting

In San Francisco, HIV viral suppression is 71% among housed individuals but only 20% among unhoused individuals. We conducted a discrete choice experiment at a San Francisco public HIV clinic to evaluate care preferences among people living with HIV (PLH) experiencing homelessness/unstable housing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

From July to November 2020, we conducted a discrete choice experiment among PLH experiencing homelessness/unstable housing who accessed care through (1) an incentivized, drop-in program (POP-UP) or (2) traditional primary care. We investigated 5 program features: single provider vs team of providers; visit incentives ($0, $10, and $20); location (current site vs current + additional site); drop-in vs scheduled visits; in-person only vs optional telehealth visits; and navigator assistance. We estimated relative preferences using mixed-effects logistic regression and conducted latent class analysis to evaluate preference heterogeneity.

Results

We enrolled 115 PLH experiencing homelessness/unstable housing, 40% of whom lived outdoors. The strongest preferences were for the same provider (β = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.41), visit incentives (β = 0.56 per $5; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.66), and drop-in visits (β = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.82). Telehealth was not preferred. Latent class analysis revealed 2 distinct groups: 78 (68%) preferred a flexible care model, whereas 37 (32%) preferred a single provider.

Conclusions

We identified heterogeneous care preferences among PLH experiencing homelessness/unstable housing during the COVID-19 pandemic, with two-thirds preferring greater flexibility and one-third preferring provider continuity. Telehealth was not preferred, even with navigator facilitation. Including patient choice in service delivery design can improve care engagement, particularly for marginalized populations, and is an essential tool for ending the HIV epidemic.

Objective

Homelessness is the greatest risk factor for HIV viremia in San Francisco. Innovative care models for people with HIV (PWH) with homelessness or unstable housing (HUH) are needed to address this inequity. We developed a novel low-barrier clinic-based program for PWH-HUH in an urban safety-net clinic ('POP-UP') and report outcomes on care engagement and viral suppression.

Design

A prospective cohort study.

Setting

San Francisco General Hospital HIV Clinic (Ward 86).

Participants

We enrolled PWH who are HUH, viraemic and for whom usual care is not working (at least one missed primary care appointment and at least two drop-in visits at Ward 86 in the last year).

Intervention

POP-UP provides drop-in comprehensive primary care, housing assistance and case management, financial incentives and patient navigation with frequent contact.

Main outcome measures

We describe uptake of eligible patients into POP-UP, and cumulative incidence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation, return to care and virologic suppression 6 months post-enrolment, estimated via Kaplan--Meier.

Results

Out of 192 referred patients, 152 were eligible, and 75 enrolled. All 75 were off ART and viraemic; 100% had a substance use disorder; and 77% had a mental health diagnosis. Over three-quarters restarted ART within 7 days of enrolment, and 91% returned for follow-up within 90 days. The cumulative incidence of viral suppression at 6 months was 55% (95% confidence interval 43-68).

Conclusion

A novel care model for PWH-HUH demonstrates early success in engaging viraemic patients in care and improving viral suppression. Low-barrier, high-contact primary care programmes offering comprehensive services and incentives may improve outcomes for this vulnerable population.