UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Emergency department use and hospitalizations among homeless adults with substance dependence and mental… Cheung, Adrienne; Somers, Julian M; Moniruzzaman, Akm; Patterson, Michelle; Frankish, Charles J; Krausz, Michael; Palepu, Anita Aug 5, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52383-13722_2015_Article_38.pdf [ 815.15kB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0221269.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0221269-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0221269-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0221269-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0221269-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0221269-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0221269-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 DOI 10.1186/s13722-015-0038-1RESEARCHEmergency department use and hospitalizations among homeless adults with substance dependence and mental disordersAdrienne Cheung1, Julian M Somers2, Akm Moniruzzaman2, Michelle Patterson2, Charles J Frankish3, Michael Krausz3,4 and Anita Palepu1*Abstract Background: Homelessness, substance use, and mental disorders each have been associated with higher rates of emergency department (ED) use and hospitalization. We sought to understand the correlation between ED use, hospital admission, and substance dependence among homeless individuals with concurrent mental illness who participated in a ‘Housing First’ (HF) intervention trial.Methods: The Vancouver At Home study consisted of two randomized controlled trials addressing homeless indi-viduals with mental disorders who have “high” or “moderate” levels of need. Substance dependence was determined at baseline prior to randomization, using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview diagnostic tool, version 6.0. To assess health service use, we reviewed the number of ED visits and the number of hospital admissions based on administrative data for six urban hospitals. Negative binomial regression modeling was used to test the independ-ent association between substance dependence and health service use (ED use and hospitalization), adjusting for HF intervention, age, gender, ethnicity, education, duration of lifetime homelessness, mental disorders, chronic health conditions, and other variables that were selected a priori to be potentially associated with use of ED services and hospital admission.Results: Of the 497 homeless adults with mental disorders who were recruited, we included 381 participants in our analyses who had at least 1 year of follow-up and had a personal health number that could be linked to admin-istrative health data. Of this group, 59% (n = 223) met criteria for substance dependence. We found no independ-ent association between substance dependence and ED visits or hospital admissions [rate ratio (RR) = 0.85; 95% CI 0.62–1.17 and RR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.83–1.77, respectively]. The most responsible diagnoses (defined as the diagnosis that accounts for the length of stay) for hospital admissions were schizo-affective disorder, schizophrenia-related disorder, or bipolar affective disorder; collectively reported in 48% (n = 263) of admissions. Fifteen percent (n = 84) of hospital admissions listed substance dependence as the most responsible diagnosis.Conclusions: Substance dependence was not independently associated with ED use or hospital admission among homeless adults with mental disorders participating in an HF trial. Hospital admissions among this cohort were pri-marily associated with severe mental disorders.Trial registration: ISRCTN57595077 and ISRCTN66721740© 2015 Cheung et al. This 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.Open Access*Correspondence:  apalepu@hivnet.ubc.ca 1 Department of Medicine, Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, University of British Columbia, 588B-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, CanadaFull list of author information is available at the end of the articlePage 2 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 Keywords: Emergency department use, Hospital admission, Substance dependence, Homelessness, At Home study, Mental disordersprioritizes consumer choice and an individual’s rights to appropriate housing, with the proposition that helping to meet immediate needs will enable the patients to address addiction and other psychiatric conditions. In addition to the housing component, different methods of sup-port and treatment are offered to support recovery in a more effective way [13, 14]. These services have multiple goals, including the reduction of unnecessary hospitali-zations and ED visits. We found that the assertive com-munity treatment intervention of HF was associated with a reduction in ED visits [15].Positive outcomes have been observed with HF in homeless adults with concurrent disorders, including greater residential stability and greater perception of choice among participants [16–18]. A number of studies have reported reductions in health service use and health care costs with HF interventions, including reductions in ED visits, hospitalizations, and length of hospital stay [7, 19–21]. Contrary to these findings, however, Hwang et  al. found no difference in health service use between a group of supportive housing program participants and a control group in a study conducted in Toronto [21]. Another study, following a cohort of applicants to a sup-portive housing program in the United States, also failed to find reductions in health care use over time; this ret-rospective cohort study showed no significant difference in utilization rates of ambulance services and the ED before and after the intervention, and no difference was detected between the intervention group and a wait-list control group [22]. Although promising results have been published regarding the effectiveness of HF, some contro-versy remains as to its effect on participants’ use of health services.In spite of the documented higher prevalence of sub-stance use among the homeless, evidence is lacking on the effect of substance dependence on various outcomes, such as health service use for this group [23–25]. The objective of this study was to examine whether substance dependence at baseline predicted health service use at 2-year follow-up among participants assigned to HF or to treatment as usual (TAU), using data from the Van-couver At Home (VAH) study. We were also interested in whether or not substance dependence altered the effect of HF on ED use and hospitalization. We hypothesized that persons who were homeless and met criteria for sub-stance dependence would have significantly higher lev-els of ED use and hospital admission at 2-year follow-up compared to persons without substance dependence.BackgroundHomelessness is associated with a number of health and policy challenges in urban settings around the world. A significant proportion of individuals struggling with homelessness also suffer from substance dependence and other concurrent mental illnesses [1, 2]. A higher preva-lence of these disorders has been observed among home-less populations in Canada, the United States, Europe, and Australia [3, 4]. In Toronto, Canada, lifetime diagno-sis of mental illness and substance use or dependence has been recorded as high as 67 and 68%, respectively, among users of homeless shelters [1]. In the Hotel Study, which included 297 adults living in single-room occupancy hotels in Vancouver, the lifetime prevalence of mental ill-ness and substance dependence was 98 and 85%, respec-tively [5].Homelessness, substance use, and mental disorders each have been associated with higher rates of emergency department (ED) use, hospitalization, and involvement with other publicly-funded services in the United States and Canada [6–10]. One survey of 2,500 adults who were homeless in the United States found that less stable hous-ing, history of psychiatric hospitalization, and substance abuse were associated with repeated use of ED services (defined as four or more visits in the previous year) [10]. Tsai et al. reported similar findings in comparing home-less to housed persons accessing Veterans Affairs EDs in the U.S. Homeless veterans had four times the odds of using the ED as housed veterans, and they were also more likely to have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder or schizophrenia in the preceding year [11]. Another study, examining discharge data from New York City hospitals, found that patients who were homeless stayed in the hospital, on average, 4.1 days (36%) longer than a comparison group [12]. Using the same sample as the present study, Palepu et al. found that daily substance use was associated with more severe mental health symp-toms [2], which could lead to increased health care utili-zation. It follows that interventions addressing substance use and mental disorders among the homeless may reduce downstream health care expenditures.Housing First (HF) is a low-barrier intervention designed to target the most vulnerable among the home-less, including those with severe mental illness experienc-ing chronic homelessness [7, 13]. HF provides immediate access to subsidized housing with supports and does not impose prerequisites of abstinence from substance use or adherence to medication for mental disorders. The model Page 3 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 MethodsThe detailed methods for the At Home/Chez Soi collabo-ration and the VAH study have been previously described [13, 14]. Essentially, At Home/Chez Soi is a pragmatic, multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness of a complex housing and support inter-vention in five Canadian cities. The VAH study includes additional measures, a site-specific intervention, and has a particular focus on substance use. In this manuscript, we report findings from the VAH study using survey data from participants recruited between October 2009 and June 2011, and administrative data on ED use and hos-pitalization spanning April 2007–September 2012. The VAH study is comprised of two RCTs examining the effectiveness of HF interventions among homeless adults with mental disorders who were differentiated based on their assessed levels of need (high vs. moderate). We pooled data from the two trials (ISRCTN57595077 and ISRCTN66721740) to examine the relationship between substance dependence and ED use and hospitalization [14]. Institutional Research Ethics Board approval was received from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia.Participants were recruited through referrals from a range of community agencies including shelters, drop-in centers, homeless outreach teams, mental health teams, inpatient hospital wards, and criminal justice programs [13, 14]. Individuals were eligible if they were age 19 years or older, met criteria for a current mental disorder on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) 6.0 [26], with or without concurrent substance depend-ence, and were either absolutely homeless or precariously housed.Initial screening with referring service providers was conducted over the telephone [14]. This was followed by a face-to-face screening interview with the potential par-ticipant, where trained interviewers determined eligibil-ity, explained study procedures, and obtained informed consent. A total of 800 individuals were screened for eligibility. Approximately 100 individuals did not meet eligibility criteria in the telephone screen. Another 200 were excluded through the baseline interview procedure due to ineligibility (n = 94), the inability to be contacted for baseline interview (n = 100), declining to participate (n = 3), or an incomplete interview (n = 3).Once participants were enrolled, interviewers admin-istered a baseline questionnaire, which consisted of detailed questions regarding sociodemographic charac-teristics, symptoms of mental disorders, substance use, physical health, and service involvement [14]. Partici-pants received an honorarium of $35 upon completing the baseline interview. Participants were identified as high needs (HN) if they had a score of 62 or lower on the Multnomah Community Ability Scale [27], met criteria for current psychotic disorder or a (hypo)manic episode on the MINI, and had at least one of the following: two or more hospitalizations for mental illness in any one of the last 5 years, substance dependence in the past month, or legal involvement in the past year [13, 14]. All other included participants were designated as moderate needs (MN).A detailed description of the intervention arms has been published previously [14]. Briefly, HN participants were randomized to one of three intervention arms: (1) HF with assertive community treatment (HF-ACT), where participants were given a choice of up to three market rentals and had to fulfill the commitments of their lease and check in with an ACT team member on a weekly basis with a client/staff ratio of 9:1; (2) HF in a congregate hous-ing unit (HF-CONG) with onsite support; or (3) HF with treatment as usual (HN-TAU), which provided no addi-tional housing or support aside from what was available in the community. MN participants were randomized to one of two intervention arms: (1) HF with intensive case management (HF-ICM), where participants were given a choice of up to three market rentals and connected to existing community services through case managers and a client/staff ratio of 16:1; or (2) MN-TAU.Randomization was computer-generated at a national data center using an adaptive randomization procedure. This allowed for sequential allocation of participants immediately after enrollment, without affecting the pre-dictability of future assignments. Blinding of participants was impossible, and blinding of interviewers was not feasible as interviewers were required to obtain data on participants’ housing status. Interviewers met with par-ticipants at 3-month intervals over the 2-year follow-up period. Participants were asked to provide consent to access administrative hospital data through their provin-cial personal health numbers.Variables of interestOur primary outcome was health service use, defined as the number of ED visits and hospitalizations during the observation period. Both ED use and hospital admis-sions were captured through the administrative data. This administrative data included information related to ED visits (such as number and type of ED visits, mode of arrival, name of hospital, chief complaint, discharge diagnosis, and disposition) and hospitalizations (such as number of hospital admissions, name of hospital, most responsible diagnosis) from April 2007 to September 2012 at six urban hospitals in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.Our primary independent variable, substance depend-ence (yes/no), was identified at baseline using the MINI Page 4 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 6.0. Self-reported frequency of substance use over the past month was captured using the Maudsley Addiction Profile at baseline and every 6  months thereafter up to 24  months [28]. Drug use frequency was dichotomized to compare daily substance use versus nondaily use (less than daily or none) [2]. HF intervention was the combi-nation of the three housing intervention arms (HF-ACT, HF-CONG, HF-ICM), and TAU was comprised of the two TAU arms (HN and MN). Mental health symptoms and severity were collected through the Colorado Symp-tom Index (CSI) [29, 30]. Sociodemographic information (including gender, self-reported race/ethnicity, mari-tal status, highest educational attainment, and monthly income) was collected at baseline.For mental disorders, the severe cluster included at least one current psychotic disorder, mood disorder with psychotic features, and (hypo)manic episode, as identified through the MINI [26]. The less-severe clus-ter included at least one current major depressive epi-sode, panic disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Based on a list of 31 chronic health conditions, partici-pants were also asked to report any conditions that were expected to last or already had lasted at least 6 months. Chronic health conditions listed in the survey tool were adapted from the Canadian Community Health Survey [31] and the National Population Health Survey [32]. Pos-itivity for blood-borne infectious diseases was obtained by self-report. Participants were asked three questions pertaining to access to care that we included in our analy-ses: (1) do you have a regular medical doctor? (2) Is there a place you go when you are sick or need advice about your health? (If answered yes, named a hospital ED); (3) in the past 6 months, was there ever a time when you felt that you needed health care but you didn’t receive it?Statistical analysisWe pooled data from the two trials for the analyses. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the sample (mean and SD for continuous variables, and propor-tion for categorical variables). We compared variables between groups using parametric (Student’s t-test or one-way ANOVA for continuous variables) and nonpar-ametric (Pearson’s Chi square test for categorical vari-ables) tests, as appropriate. We estimated the rate of ED visits and hospitalizations by dividing the total number of occurrences (visits or admissions) by the total follow-up time (person-years). We fit separate models for the number of ED visits and the number of hospitalizations. We used negative binomial regression (NBR) analysis to estimate the association between each outcome vari-able and the primary independent variable (substance dependence). We chose NBR due to over-dispersion, the count nature of outcome data, and better goodness of fit statistics compared to Poisson regression. Post randomi-zation period (exposure time) was estimated from the differences between time 0 (date of randomization) and time 1 (date of death or administrative data cutoff date, September, 2012), which varied across individuals (range 1.1–2 years). We used this exposure time (using the log transformation) as an offset variable in the regression analysis to adjust for these variations across individuals.We examined the effects of substance dependence on health care use in both bivariate and multivari-able settings. For the multivariable regression models, we included variables that were selected a priori to be potentially associated with ED visits and hospital admis-sion [HF intervention (combined HF-ACT, HF-ICM, HF-CONG), need-level (HN vs. MN), employment, age, gender, ethnicity, education, age at first homelessness, mental disorders, chronic health conditions (3 or more), blood-borne infectious disease, prior health care utiliza-tion, having a regular doctor, and where one goes when sick]. In the model-building process, we chose all vari-ables that were significant in bivariate models (p ≤ 0.05). In addition, we forced several demographic variables and substance dependence into the multivariable models, regardless of significance in bivariate models. We tested the interaction term between HF intervention and sub-stance dependence, but did not include it in the final model due to nonsignificance (p  >  0.05). We also con-ducted two sub-analyses fitting NBR models: one for the association of daily substance use and ED use and hos-pitalization using a similar set of covariates; and another model examining the association of substance depend-ence on psychiatric hospitalization. All reported p values were two-sided. Rate ratios (RRs) obtained from the NBR models were reported as effect sizes. The missing values for covariates that ranged from zero to 2% were excluded from the analysis. IBM SPSS statistics (version 19.0, August 2010) and STATA 12 (StataCorp. 2011) were used to conduct these analyses.ResultsThe eligible sample consisted of 381 participants who had at least 1  year of follow-up, provided consent to access administrative health data, and had a personal health number that could be used to access those data. There were no significant differences in the characteris-tics of the eligible sample compared to the total sample (Table 1). Among the eligible sample, 59% (n = 223) met criteria for substance dependence, and 29% (n  =  110) reported daily substance use. Twenty-eight percent (n =  105) of the sample was female, and 16% (n =  62) identified as Aboriginal. Seventy percent (n  =  266) of participants reported having at least three or more chronic health conditions, and 32% (n =  121) reported Page 5 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 having a blood-borne infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C). Most participants (67%) reported having a regular medical doctor. The average follow-up time was 1.94  years (SD 0.15  years, range 1.1–2  years). Tables  2 and 3 present the participant characteristics by ED and hospital admission rate (per person, per year).The 381 participants incurred a total of 3,086 ED vis-its during the 2-year study period. The average number of ED visits was 4.2 per person, per year (Table 2). Less than one-quarter (23%) had no visits and one individual accumulated 176 ED visits. The multivariable NBR model (Table 4) showed no significant association between sub-stance dependence and ED visits [adjusted incidence rate ratio (ARR) = 0.85; 95% CI 0.62–1.17]. The HF interven-tion was associated with a reduction in subsequent ED visits (ARR  =  0.74; 95% CI 0.55–1.00). We found that having an ED visit in the year prior to randomization (ARR = 1.11; 95% CI 1.08–1.14) and reporting the ED as a place to go when sick (ARR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.01–2.09) were associated with higher rates of ED use. There were no significant interactions between substance depend-ence and the HF intervention on ED visits (p = 0.50) or between substance dependence and ACT on ED visits (p = 0.45).Participants in the eligible sample incurred a total of 550 hospital admissions during the 2-year follow-up period. The average number of admissions was 0.8 per person, per year (Table  3). The maximum num-ber of admissions per person was 15. Sixty-one percent (n  =  336) of admissions occurred during the first year post randomization. Psychiatric hospital admissions comprised 81% of the total hospitalizations (443/550) and were incurred by 137 homeless persons. The most responsible diagnosis for hospital admission was schiz-oaffective or schizophrenia-related disorder in 233 admissions (42%), followed by bipolar affective disorder Table 1 Characteristics of “At Home” participants by Housing First allocation statusa P values based on comparisons of characteristics between HF-yes participants and HF-no participants in the eligible sample (n = 381).b Dichotomized based on median value.Variable Entire sample (N = 497)n (%)/mean (SD)Eligible sample (n = 381)n (%)/mean (SD)Housing First-yes (n = 250)n (%)/mean (SD)Housing First-no (n = 131)n (%)/mean (SD)p valueaHousing First interventions 297 (60) 250 (66)Substance dependence 288 (58) 223 (59) 150 (60) 73 (56) 0.421Daily substance use 143 (29) 110 (29) 78 (31) 32 (25) 0.172Need level (high) 297 (59) 223 (59)Age at randomization (in years) 40.8 (11.0) 40.6 (10.9) 40.6 (10.8) 40.6 (11.1) 0.968Age of first homelessness (in years) 30.3 (13.3) 29.9 (13.4) 29.5 (12.9) 30.5 (14.2) 0.477Female gender 134 (27) 105 (28) 65 (26) 40 (31) 0.313Aboriginals 77 (16) 62 (16) 45 (18) 17 (13) 0.119White 280 (56) 206 (54) 139 (56) 67 (51)Other 140 (28) 113 (30) 66 (26) 47 (36)Education (incomplete high school) 280 (57) 214 (57) 147 (60) 67 (51) 0.118Single/never married 343 (70) 254 (67) 168 (68) 86 (66) 0.755Income ($800 CDN or more)b in past month 257 (52) 201 (54) 138 (56) 63 (49) 0.180Lifetime duration of homelessness (in months) 60.2 (70.3) 56.8 (62.2) 60.6 (66.4) 49.5 (52.7) 0.099Longest episode of homelessness (in months) 30.9 (40.1) 29.7 (38.8) 31.1 (40.2) 27.2 (36.0) 0.353Less severe cluster of mental disorders 264 (53) 201 (59) 130 (52) 71 (54) 0.683Severe cluster of mental disorders 363 (73) 272 (71) 180 (72) 92 (70) 0.716Multiple mental disorders (≥3) 114 (25) 88 (23) 61 (24) 27 (21) 0.405Suicidality (high) 87 (17) 68 (18) 44 (18) 24 (18) 0.861Mental health severity/CSI score (per unit) 37.2 (12.5) 37.3 (12.6) 36.6 (12.8) 38.7 (12.2) 0.116Chronic health conditions (≥3) 344 (69) 266 (70) 172 (69) 94 (72) 0.551Blood-borne infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis B or C) 157 (32) 121 (32) 83 (33) 38 (29) 0.416Have a regular medical doctor 320 (65) 257 (67) 170 (68) 87 (67) 0.831Place to go when you are sick 395 (81) 302 (81) 202 (82) 100 (78) 0.396Needed health care, but didn’t receive it 209 (43) 156 (42) 97 (40) 59 (46) 0.239ED visit before randomization (last year) 4.1 (7.0) 4.2 (7.1) 4.0 (6.8) 0.778Hospital admissions before randomization (last year) 0.9 (1.5) 0.9 (1.5) 0.9 (1.5) 0.805Page 6 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 Table 2 ED visit during the post randomization period, by “At Home” participant characteristics (n = 381)Variable # of ER visits Total person- years (PYs)ED rate (per person, per year)Overall 3,086 738.2 4.2Housing First interventions 1,925 482.8 4.0Treatment as usual 1,161 255.4 4.6Substance dependence Yes 1,784 430.9 4.1 No 1,302 307.3 4.2Daily substance use Yes 921 213.3 4.3 No 2,165 524.9 4.1Need level High 2,038 430.6 4.7 Moderate 1,048 307.6 3.4Male 2,127 529.5 4.0Female 947 202.7 4.7Aboriginals 672 119.7 5.6White 1,794 398.5 4.5Other 620 219.0 2.8Incomplete high school 2,008 416.5 4.8High school or higher 1,062 315.7 3.4Single/never married 2,225 493.2 4.5Other 796 239.0 3.3Income ($800 CDN or more) in past month Yes 1,660 387.0 4.3 No 1,413 339.5 4.2Less severe cluster of mental disorders Yes 1,605 390.1 4.1 No 1,481 348.1 4.3Severe cluster of mental disorders Yes 2,369 527.5 4.5 No 717 210.7 3.4Multiple mental disorders (≥3) Yes 826 171.3 4.8 No 2,260 566.9 4.0Suicidality (high) Yes 592 132.5 4.5 No 2,494 605.7 4.1Chronic health conditions (≥3) Yes 2,426 516.6 4.7 No 660 221.6 3.0Blood-borne infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis B or C) Yes 941 235.6 4.0 No 2,143 498.6 4.3Have a regular medical doctor Yes 2,204 497.6 4.4 No 882 240.6 3.7Place to go when you are sick Yes 2,757 595.2 4.6 No 328 143.0 2.3Page 7 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 in 30 admissions (6%). These diagnoses collectively accounted for 48% (n  =  263) of hospital admissions, while 15% (n  =  84) of admissions were attributable to substance use. As shown in Table  5, substance depend-ence was not independently associated with hospital admissions (ARR  =  1.21; 95% CI 0.83–1.77). Higher rates of hospital admission were associated with having a hospital admission in the year prior to randomization (ARR  =  1.33; 95% CI 1.19–1.49) and having a mental disorder in the severe cluster (ARR = 1.76; 95% CI 1.09–2.86). There was no significant interaction between sub-stance dependence and the HF intervention on hospital admissions (p = 0.60).We did not find an association between daily substance use and health service use in the sub-analysis, when we fit separate models for the number of ED visits and the number of hospitalizations (data not shown). We also did not find a significant association between substance dependence and psychiatric hospitalization (ARR 1.14; 95% CI 0.73–1.80).DiscussionWe found no association between substance dependence and health service use in the form of ED visits and hos-pitalizations. Daily substance use also was not associated with ED use or hospital admission in these models. Two studies also found no association between substance use and health service involvement [9, 33]. The first exam-ined 2,974 homeless persons in the United States and did not find an association between alcohol and drug abuse with ED use or hospitalization [9]. The second study in Toronto also found no association between hav-ing an alcohol and drug problem with frequent ED vis-its (4.7  visits/year) [33]. In contrast, many studies have shown that homelessness, substance use, and mental dis-orders are all independently associated with higher rates of ED use and hospitalization [6–10, 22, 34, 35]. HF has been linked to increased residential stability and reduc-tions in these health services in a number of studies [7, 19–21, 24, 25, 36], while others have found no significant association [21, 22]. Differences in these findings may be due to differences in the homeless samples in terms of the higher burden of medical and psychiatric comorbidi-ties, severity of substance use, and health care systems in different jurisdictions. We found a reduction in ED vis-its among HF participants compared to the TAU group but did not detect a difference in hospitalizations, which is consistent with a finding previously reported among VAH high-needs participants in the HF-ACT arm that has been discussed elsewhere [15].It is notable that our observed average rate of ED use was high, at 4.2 visits per year. This is in contrast to a recent study of 1,189 homeless adults who were followed for 4 years in Toronto [33]. Those researchers measured average ED visits per year at ~2, and they defined high utilizers as 4.7 visits per year, which corresponded to the top 10 percentile. Interestingly, the average ED visits among these frequent ED users was 12.1 per person-year. Unlike other studies of homeless persons, our criteria for study inclusion stipulated that they had to have a mental disorder, and 71% were classified as having severe clus-ter of mental disorders, including psychosis, mood dis-order with psychotic features, and hypomanic or manic episode. Furthermore, 70% of our sample had at least three or more chronic health conditions, which is similar to a study of frequent ED use (>4 visits per year) among homeless veterans within the Veterans Affair health care system that found an association between the high bur-den of chronic medical and psychiatric diagnoses and frequent ED use [37]. Many other studies report lower annual rates of ED use among persons who are home-less, and those who had ≥4 ED visits annually are defined as frequent users [22, 38, 39]. In contrast, D’Amore et al. recorded an average ED visit rate of 6.2 per homeless per-son per year at one ED in New York City. This sample was similar to ours, with a high prevalence of mental health disorders and substance use [40].In this study, we found no significant interaction between substance dependence and HF vs. TAU inter-vention on ED visits and hospitalization. Few studies have examined the effect of HF interventions in homeless populations with substance dependence [23]. It is reason-able to suspect that outcomes of HF may differ among this subgroup from the general homeless population, and further investigation is warranted considering the high prevalence of addiction among chronically homeless and mentally ill adults [16, 41]. Edens et al. examined health service costs in a population of active substance users, Table 2 continuedVariable # of ER visits Total person- years (PYs)ED rate (per person, per year)Needed health care, but didn’t receive it Yes 1,568 321.3 4.9 No 1,518 416.9 3.6Page 8 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 Table 3 Acute hospital admissions during the post randomization period among “At Home” participants (n = 381)Variable Hospital admissions (N) Total person-years (PYs) Hospitalization rate (per person, per year)Overall 550 721.9 0.8Housing First interventions 367 471.6 0.8Treatment as usual 183 250.3 0.7Substance dependence Yes 338 421.2 0.8 No 212 300.7 0.7Daily substance use Yes 124 207.9 0.6 No 426 514.0 0.8Need level High 366 420.2 0.9 Moderate 184 301.7 0.6Male 390 518.8 0.8Female 157 197.1 0.8Aboriginals 79 116.2 0.7White 299 389.9 0.8Other 172 215.8 0.8Incomplete high school 355 407.1 0.9High school or higher 195 308.8 0.6Single/never married 410 482.0 0.9Other 138 234.0 0.6Income ($800 CDN or more) in past month Yes 319 377.9 0.8 No 229 332.6 0.7Less severe cluster of mental disorders Yes 227 381.0 0.6 No 323 340.9 1.0Severe cluster of mental disorders Yes 465 516.0 0.9 No 85 205.9 0.4Multiple mental disorders (≥3) Yes 118 167.8 0.7 No 432 554.1 0.8Suicidality (high) Yes 106 129.1 0.8 No 444 592.8 0.8Chronic health conditions (≥3) Yes 352 506.6 0.7 No 198 215.3 0.9Blood-borne infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis B or C) Yes 167 231.8 0.7 No 383 486.2 0.8Have a regular medical doctor Yes 324 484.0 0.7 No 226 236.0 1.0Place to go when you are sick Yes 460 570.8 0.8 No 88 140.7 0.6Page 9 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 and Larimer et  al. analyzed overall costs (including jail, ED, inpatient and outpatient contacts, emergency medi-cal service calls, and transports) in chronically home-less adults with severe alcohol addiction. Both studies involved a low-barrier housing intervention similar to HF, and both studies found a reduction in costs when participants were stably housed [24, 25]. Martinez exam-ined placement in permanent supportive housing and found that stable housing significantly reduced the per-centage of residents with an ED visit, the average number of ED visits per person, and the total number of ED visits among homeless adults with substance use and mental disorders [36]. Our results support this existing research showing that HF can be equally effective in persons with and without substance dependence in reducing ED visits.Of note, hospital admissions in this study were associ-ated with the severe cluster of mental disorders, which accounted for 48% of hospital admissions in the follow-up period. Contrary to general perception, disorders attributed to substance use accounted for a relatively small proportion of hospital admissions (15%). Substance dependence also was not a driver for ED visits. In a study of New York City hospital discharge data, Salit et  al. reported that 80.6% of hospital admissions among home-less adults involved either a principal or secondary diag-nosis of substance use or mental illness, but did not report what proportion of admissions were attributed to sub-stance use and mental illness independently [12]. It also may be that these results reflect the high level of stigma towards substance users among health professionals [42].Hospitalization among homeless adults in Toronto was also recently examined [43], and 921 hospitalizations were incurred during the 4-year follow-up, of which 548 (59.5%) were medical or surgical and 373 (40.5%) were psychiatric. We observed 550 hospital admissions dur-ing the 2-year follow-up period and found a higher aver-age yearly hospital admission rate (medical, surgical, and psychiatric combined) of 0.72 vs. 0.26 in their study. This Table 3 continuedVariable Hospital admissions (N) Total person-years (PYs) Hospitalization rate (per person, per year)Needed health care, but didn’t receive it Yes 198 299.5 0.7 No 335 406.1 0.8Table 4 Negative binomial regression analysis to  estimate the effect of  substance dependence on  ED visits during  the post randomization period among “At Home” participants (n = 381)Variable Unadjusted RR (95% CI) p value Adjusted RR (95% CI)Substance dependence (yes vs. no) 0.99 (0.73, 1.34) 0.953 0.85 (0.62, 1.17)Housing First interventions (yes vs. no) 0.89 (0.65, 1.22) 0.468 0.74 (0.55, 1.00)Need level (high vs. moderate) 1.37 (1.02, 1.86) 0.039 1.11 (0.79, 1.56)Age at randomization (per year) 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) 0.265 1.00 (0.98, 1.02)Age of first homelessness 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 0.900 0.99 (0.97, 1.00)Female gender 1.13 (0.81, 1.58) 0.459 1.03 (0.75, 1.70)Aboriginals 1.94 (1.23, 3.05) 0.004 1.32 (0.95, 1.84)White 1.60 (1.14, 2.24) 0.006 1.05 (0.65, 1.76)Other ReferenceEducation (incomplete high school) 0.71 (0.53, 0.96) 0.027 0.78 (0.58, 1.05)Single/never married 1.33 (0.97, 1.83) 0.080Income ($800 CDN or more) in past month 1.05 (0.78, 1.41) 0.762ER visit before randomization (last year) 1.12 (1.09, 1.15) <0.001 1.11 (1.08, 1.14)Less severe cluster of mental disorders 0.97 (0.72, 1.31) 0.861 0.98 (0.73, 1.32)Severe cluster of mental disorders 1.28 (0.92, 1.78) 0.141 1.32 (0.91, 1.92)Chronic health conditions (≥3) 1.56 (1.12, 2.16) 0.007 1.13 (0.79, 1.63)Blood-borne infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis B or C) 0.93 (0.68, 1.29) 0.678 1.28 (0.92, 1.79)Have a regular medical doctor 1.20 (0.87, 1.65) 0.264 1.06 (0.77, 1.46)Place to go when you are sick 2.06 (1.41, 3.00) <0.001 1.45 (1.01, 2.09)Needed health care, but didn’t receive it 1.36 (1.01, 1.84) 0.046 0.93 (0.69, 1.27)Page 10 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 is likely attributable to differences in the sample charac-teristics, where VAH had many more persons with severe mental disorders and did not include homeless families with children (who tend not to use as much health ser-vices). The Toronto researchers also found that a large proportion of the psychiatric admissions were for schiz-ophrenia and other psychotic disorders and noted that some hospitalizations may be difficult to avoid [43].These findings may be relevant to policymakers wish-ing to reduce health care expenditures among this popu-lation. Increasing availability and access to mental health services may reduce costly acute health service use more so than targeting substance dependence alone. One ter-tiary intervention that included a residential treatment program for persons with severe substance dependence and concurrent mental illness (of whom half were home-less at intake) found a reduction in substance use and psychopathology symptoms among those who completed the follow-up assessment at 6 months [44].Several limitations should be considered when inter-preting our results. The HF-CONG location was a few blocks away from a hospital, which may have influenced the frequency of ED use. It should be noted that given the high burden of mental disorders and chronic health con-ditions in this population, the provision of regular care may have identified the need for ED and hospital admis-sions, and the use of such services may have been appro-priate. We would expect the use of these health services to decline with longer time in HF. We did not examine the effect of substance dependence within each HF inter-vention arm on ED visits and hospitalizations, given that the interaction term of substance dependence by HF was nonsignificant. Participants may also have been inclined to under-report substance use due to stigma and/or the fear of losing their housing/services. Access to adminis-trative data provided a more accurate portrayal of health service use than self-reported measures; however, our analyses were based on incomplete data from the VAH study sample because some participants did not provide consent to access data, could not be linked to the data-base, or had less than 1  year of follow-up. Further, we were able to acquire data on ED visits and hospital admis-sions from six urban hospitals, but may have missed vis-its to other hospitals in British Columbia or outside of the province. Finally, the effect sizes observed in our mul-tivariable analyses were generally small.This study contributes to the body of evidence exam-ining HF interventions in a homeless population with high rates of substance use and mental disorders, an area in which research is lacking. We analyzed data Table 5 Negative binomial regression analysis to estimate the effect of substance dependence on acute hospital admis-sions during the post randomization period among “At Home” participants (n = 381)Variable Unadjusted RR (95% CI) p value Adjusted RR (95% CI)Substance dependence (yes vs. no) 1.15 (0.81, 1.65) 0.433 1.21 (0.83, 1.77)Housing first interventions (yes vs. no) 1.08 (0.75, 1.56) 0.682 0.65 (0.25, 1.72)Need level (high vs. moderate) 1.42 (0.99, 2.03) 0.056 0.88 (0.58, 1.35)Age at randomization (per year) 0.98 (0.97, 1.00) 0.044 0.99 (0.97, 1.01)Age of first homelessness 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) 0.475 1.00 (0.98, 1.02)Female gender 1.04 (0.70, 1.54) 0.844 1.05 (0.71, 1.55)Aboriginals 0.83 (0.48, 1.44) 0.508 0.89 (0.51, 1.53)White 0.97 (0.65, 1.45) 0.897 1.06 (0.73, 1.56)Other Reference ReferenceEducation (incomplete high school) 1.35 (0.95, 1.93) 0.095 1.27 (0.88, 1.83)Single/never married 1.42 (0.97, 2.08) 0.070Income ($800 CDN or more) in past month 1.23 (0.87, 1.75) 0.247Hospital admissions before randomization (last year) 1.34 (1.20, 1.50) <0.001 1.33 (1.19, 1.49)Less severe cluster of mental disorders 0.65 (0.46, 0.92) 0.015 0.76 (0.53, 1.10)Severe cluster of mental disorders 2.12 (1.42, 3.17) <0.001 1.76 (1.09, 2.86)Chronic health conditions (≥3) 0.75 (0.51, 1.09) 0.127 0.99 (0.67, 1.46)Blood-borne infectious disease (HIV, hepatitis B or C) 0.92 (0.63, 1.35) 0.682Have a regular medical doctor 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) 0.053 0.78 (0.54, 1.12)Place to go when you are sick 1.28 (0.81, 2.01) 0.284Needed health care, but didn’t receive it 0.81 (0.57, 1.16) 0.260Page 11 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17 collected from an RCT as a longitudinal cohort with con-trols. This is an improvement on much of the previous research that has been based on cross-sectional or obser-vational designs without controls. We were also able to achieve exceptionally high rates of follow-up among our participants.ConclusionsWe found no significant association between substance dependence and health service use in the form of ED vis-its and hospital admissions. Hospital admissions in the VAH cohort were mainly associated with severe mental disorder diagnoses rather than substance use disorders, suggesting that exploring interventions to better opti-mize management of these categories of mental disorders may be key to reducing hospitalization, but may prove to be challenging among persons who are homeless with concurrent disorders. It is likely that any such interven-tion will need to be comprehensive and integrate both housing and social support in the long term.AbbreviationsHF: Housing First; ED: emergency department; VAH: Vancouver At Home; ACT: assertive community treatment; ICM: intensive case management; CONG: con-gregate; AU: treatment as usual.Authors’ contributionsAC and AP made substantial contributions to study conception and design and the interpretation of data; MP made substantial contributions to the acquisition and interpretation of data; AM made substantial contributions to the analyses and interpretation of data; JS, JF, and MK made substantial con-tributions to the analyses and interpretation of data. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; gave final approval of the version to be published; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work were appropriately investi-gated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Author details1 Department of Medicine, Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sci-ences, University of British Columbia, 588B-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancou-ver, Canada. 3 School of Population and Public Health, Vancouver, Canada. 4 Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by a Grant to Simon Fraser University, made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada to the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The authors gratefully acknowledge the study participants and the support of colleagues and collaborators on this project.An abstract of these results was presented at the International Conference on Urban Health, March 6, 2014, in Manchester, England.Compliance with ethical guidelinesCompeting interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.AppendixSee Table 6.Received: 7 October 2014   Accepted: 16 July 2015References 1. Goering P, Tolomiczenko G, Sheldon T, Boydell K, Wasylenki D (2002) Characteristics of persons who are homeless for the first time. Psychiatr Serv 53(11):1472–1474 2. Palepu A, Patterson M, Strehlau V, Moniruzzamen A, Tan de Bibiana J, Frankish J et al (2013) Daily substance use and mental health symptoms among a cohort of homeless adults in Vancouver, British Columbia. J Urban Health 90(4):740–746 3. Madianos MG, Chondraki P, Papadimitriou GN (2013) Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among homeless people in Athens area: a cross-sectional study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 48(8):1225–1234 4. Fazel S, Khosla V, Doll H, Geddes J (2008) The prevalence of mental disor-ders among the homeless in western countries: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. PLoS Med 5(12):e225 5. Vila-Rodriguez F, Panenka WJ, Lang DJ, Thornton AE, Vertinsky T, Wong H et al (2013) The hotel study: multimorbidity in a community sample living in marginal housing. Am J Psychiatry 170(12):1413–1422 6. Chartier M, Carrico AW, Weiser SD, Kushel MB, Riley ED (2012) Specific psychiatric correlates of acute care utilization among unstably housed HIV-positive adults. AIDS Care 24(12):1514–1518 7. Culhane DP, Metraux S, Hadley T (2002) Public service reductions associ-ated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Hous Policy Debate 13:107–162 8. Kim TW, Kertesz SG, Horton NJ, Tibbetts N, Samet JH (2006) Episodic homelessness and health care utilization in a prospective cohort of HIV-infected persons with alcohol problems. BMC Health Serv Res 6:19 9. Kushel MB, Vittinghoff E, Haas JS (2001) Factors associated with the health care utilization of homeless persons. JAMA 285(2):200–206 10. Kushel MB, Perry S, Bangsberg D, Clark R, Moss AR (2002) Emergency department use among the homeless and marginally housed: results from a community-based study. Am J Public Health 92(5):778–784 11. Tsai J, Doran KM, Rosenheck RA (2013) When health insurance is not a factor: national comparison of homeless and nonhomeless US veterans who use Veterans Affairs Emergency Departments. Am J Public Health 103(Suppl 2):S225–S231 12. Salit SA, Kuhn EM, Hartz AJ, Vu JM, Mosso AL (1998) Hospitalization costs associated with homelessness in New York City. N Engl J Med 338(24):1734–1740Table 6 Correlation between  baseline substance depend-ence and daily substance use at each follow-up visit in the eligible sample (n = 381)a Participants with valid response to the questions related to daily substance use at each follow-up visit are presented in the parentheses. The remaining participants had either declined response or did not complete the interview.AllN (%)SD-NoN (%)SD-YesN (%)p valueDaily substance use at baseline (n = 379)a110 (29) 27 (17) 83 (37) <0.001Daily substance use at 6-month visit (n = 346)93 (27) 24 (17) 69 (34) <0.001Daily substance use at 12-month visit (n = 357)106 (30) 23 (16) 83 (39) <0.001Daily substance use at 18-month visit (n = 341)89 (26) 24 (17) 65 (32) 0.003Daily substance use at 24-month visit (n = 319)75 (23) 21 (16) 54 (28) 0.014Page 12 of 12Cheung et al. Addict Sci Clin Pract  (2015) 10:17  13. Goering PN, Streiner DL, Adair C, Aubry T, Barker J, Distasio J et al (2011) The At Home/Chez Soi trial protocol: a pragmatic, multi-site, randomised controlled trial of a Housing First intervention for homeless individuals with mental illness in five Canadian cities. BMJ Open 1(2):e000323 14. Somers JM, Patterson ML, Moniruzzaman A, Currie L, Rezansoff SN, Palepu A et al (2013) Vancouver At Home: pragmatic randomized trials investi-gating Housing First for homeless and mentally ill adults. Trials 14:365 15. Russolillo A, Patterson M, McCandless L, Moniruzzaman A, Somers J (2014) Emergency department utilisation among formerly homeless adults with mental disorders after one year of Housing First interventions: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Hous Policy 14(1):79–97 16. Palepu A, Patterson ML, Moniruzzaman A, Frankish CJ, Somers J (2013) Housing first improves residential stability in homeless adults with con-current substance dependence and mental disorders. Am J Public Health 103(Suppl 2):e30–e36 17. Tsemberis S, Gulcur L, Nakae M (2004) Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. Am J Public Health 94(4):651–656 18. Tsai J, Mares AS, Rosenheck RA (2010) A multi-site comparison of sup-ported housing for chronically homeless adults: “Housing first” versus “residential treatment first”. Psychol Serv 7(4):219–232 19. Sadowski LS, Kee RA, VanderWeele TJ, Buchanan D (2009) Effect of a hous-ing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 301(17):1771–1778 20. Srebnik D, Connor T, Sylla L (2013) A pilot study of the impact of housing first-supported housing for intensive users of medical hospitalization and sobering services. Am J Public Health 103(2):316–321 21. Hwang SW, Gogosis E, Chambers C, Dunn JR, Hoch JS, Aubry T (2011) Health status, quality of life, residential stability, substance use, and health care utilization among adults applying to a supportive housing program. J Urban Health 88(6):1076–1090 22. Kessell ER, Bhatia R, Bamberger JD, Kushel MB (2006) Public health care utilization in a cohort of homeless adult applicants to a supportive hous-ing program. J Urban Health 83(5):860–873 23. Kertesz SG, Crouch K, Milby JB, Cusimano RE, Schumacher JE (2009) Hous-ing first for homeless persons with active addiction: are we overreaching? Milbank Q 87(2):495–534 24. Larimer ME, Malone DK, Garner MD, Atkins DC, Burlingham B, Lonczak HS et al (2009) Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. JAMA 301(13):1349–1357 25. Edens EL, Mares AS, Rosenheck RA (2011) Chronically homeless women report high rates of substance use problems equivalent to chronically homeless men. Womens Health Issues 21(5):383–389 26. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E et al (1998) The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric inter-view for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 59(Suppl 20):22–33 (quiz 34–57) 27. Barker S, Barron N, McFarland BH, Bigelow DA, Carnahan T (1994) A com-munity ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: part II. Applica-tions. Commun Ment Health J 30(5):459–472 28. Marsden J, Gossop M, Stewart D, Best D, Farrell M, Lehmann P et al (1998) The Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP): a brief instrument for assessing treatment outcome. Addiction 93(12):1857–1867 29. Shern DL, Wilson NZ, Coen AS, Patrick DC, Foster M, Bartsch DA et al (1994) Client outcomes II: longitudinal client data from the Colorado treatment outcome study. Milbank Q 72(1):123–148 30. Conrad KJ, Yagelka JR, Matters MD, Rich AR, Williams V, Buchanan M (2001) Reliability and validity of a modified Colorado Symptom Index in a national homeless sample. Ment Health Serv Res 3(3):141–153 31. Canadian Community Health Survey (2010) http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SurvId=3226&SurvVer=1&InstaId=15282&InstaVer=7&SDDS=3226&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2. Accessed 15 May 2015 32. National Population Health Survey, Canada (1998–1999) http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=5004&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2. Accessed 15 May 15 2015 33. Chambers C, Chiu S, Katic M, Kiss A, Redelmeier DA, Levinson W et al (2013) High utilizers of emergency health services in a population-based cohort of homeless adults. Am J Public Health 103(Suppl 2):S302–S310 34. Hwang SW, Chambers C, Chiu S, Katic M, Kiss A, Redelmeier DA et al (2013) A comprehensive assessment of health care utilization among homeless adults under a system of universal health insurance. Am J Public Health 103(Suppl 2):S294–S301 35. Thakarar K, Morgan JR, Gaeta JM, Hohl C, Drainoni ML (2015) Predictors of frequent emergency room visits among a homeless population. PLoS One 10(4):e0124552 36. Martinez TE, Burt MR (2006) Impact of permanent supportive housing on the use of acute care health services by homeless adults. Psychiatr Serv 57(7):992–999 37. Tsai J, Rosenheck RA (2013) Risk factors for ED use among homeless veterans. Am J Emerg Med 31(5):855–858 38. Ku BS, Scott KC, Kertesz SG, Pitts SR (2010) Factors associated with use of urban emergency departments by the U.S. homeless population. Public Health Rep 125(3):398–405 39. Mandelberg JH, Kuhn RE, Kohn MA (2000) Epidemiologic analysis of an urban, public emergency department’s frequent users. Acad Emerg Med 7(6):637–646 40. D’Amore J, Hung O, Chiang W, Goldfrank L (2001) The epidemiology of the homeless population and its impact on an urban emergency depart-ment. Acad Emerg Med 8(11):1051–1055 41. Glasser I, Zywiak WH (2003) Homelessness and substance misuse: a tale of two cities. Subst Use Misuse 38(3–6):551–576 42. van Boekel LC, Brouwers EP, van Weeghel J, Garretsen HF (2013) Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use dis-orders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend 131(1–2):23–35 43. Chambers C, Katic M, Chiu S, Redelmeier DA, Levinson W, Kiss A et al (2013) Predictors of medical or surgical and psychiatric hospitalizations among a population-based cohort of homeless adults. Am J Public Health 103(Suppl 2):S380–S388 44. Schutz C, Linden IA, Torchalla I, Li K, Al-Desouki M, Krausz M (2013) The Burnaby treatment center for mental health and addiction, a novel integrated treatment program for patients with addiction and concurrent disorders: results from a program evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res 13:288Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Centraland take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission• Thorough peer review• No space constraints or color figure charges• Immediate publication on acceptance• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar• Research which is freely available for redistributionSubmit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items