↓ Skip to main content

Problems maintaining collaborative approaches with excluded populations in a randomised control trial: lessons learned implementing Housing First in France

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Problems maintaining collaborative approaches with excluded populations in a randomised control trial: lessons learned implementing Housing First in France
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0305-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline Rhenter, Aurélie Tinland, Julien Grard, Christian Laval, Jean Mantovani, Delphine Moreau, Benjamin Vidaud, Tim Greacen, Pascal Auquier, Vincent Girard

Abstract

In 2006, a local collective combating homelessness set up an 'experimental squat' in an abandoned building in Marseille, France's second largest city. They envisioned the squat as an alternative to conventional health and social services for individuals experiencing long-term homelessness and severe psychiatric disorders. Building on what they learned from the squat, some then joined a larger coalition that succeeded in convincing national government decision-makers to develop a scientific, intervention-based programme based on the Housing First model. This article analyses the political process through which social movement activism gave way to support for a state-funded programme for homeless people with mental disorders. A qualitative study of this political process was conducted between 2006 and 2014, using a hybrid theoretical perspective that combines attention to both top-down and bottom-up actions with a modified Advocacy Coalition Framework. In addition to document analysis of published and grey literature linked to the policy process, researchers drew on participant observation and observant participation of the political process. Data analysis consisted primarily of a thematic analysis of field-notes and semi-structured interviews with 65 relevant actors. A coalition of local activists, state officials and national service providers transformed knowledge about a local innovation (an experimental therapeutic squat) into the rationale for a national, scientifically based project consisting of a randomised controlled trial of four state-supported Housing First sites, costing several million euros. The coalition's strategy was two-pronged, namely to defend a social cause (the right to housing) and to promote a scientifically validated means of realising positive outcomes (housing tenure) and cost-effectiveness (reduced hospitalisation costs). Activists' self-agency, especially that of making themselves audible to public authorities, was enhanced by the coalition's ability to seize 'windows of opportunities' to their advantage. However, in contrast to the United States and Canadian Housing First contexts, which are driven by implementation science and related approaches, it was grassroots activists who promoted a scientific-technical approach among government officials unfamiliar with evidence-based practices in France. The windows of opportunity nevertheless failed to attract participation of those most in need of housing, raising the question of whether and how marginalised and/or subordinate groups can be integrated into collaborative research when a social movement-driven innovation turns into a scientific approach. The current clinical trial number is NCT01570712 . Registered July 17, 2011. First patient enrolled August 18, 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Master 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 53 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 14%
Psychology 21 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 65 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,505,836
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,104
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,691
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#28
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.