Abstract
Background
Rooming houses are an important source of housing for low-income Canadians. Little information is available on the relationship between housing conditions and health status in this vulnerable population.
Methods
Interviews were conducted with a representative sample of 295 residents in 171 rooming houses in Toronto. Health status was assessed using the SF-36. The physical attractiveness of each rooming house was rated using the Multiphasic Environmental Assessment Procedure. Associations between the health status of residents and the physical attractiveness and organizational characteristics of rooming houses were examined.
Results
Rooming house residents aged 35 years and older had significantly poorer health status than their counterparts in the Canadian general population. Eight of the ten dimensions of individual health status assessed by the SF-36 were significantly correlated with the physical attractiveness of the rooming house in which the individual lived. However, there was no significant association between residents’ health status and the rooming house’s non-profit status, provision of meals, or the presence of an on-site landlord.
Conclusions
Rooming house residents suffer from a high prevalence of ill health. Residents reporting worst health are concentrated in rooming houses in the poorest physical condition. This relationship may be mediated by selection processes that place the sickest individuals in the lowest-quality rooming houses, and/or by a direct effect of adverse housing conditions on health status. Further research is needed to elucidate these processes and to improve the health of this vulnerable population.
Résumé
Contexte
Les maisons de chambres sont une importante source de logements pour les Canadiens à faible revenu. Or, on en sait très peu sur la relation entre les conditions de logement et l’état de santé dans ce segment vulnérable de la population.
Méthode
Nous avons interviewé un échantillon représentatif de 295 résidents de 171 maisons de chambres de Toronto. Leur état de santé a été évalué grâce à l’outil SF-36. Nous avons évalué l’aspect esthétique de chaque maison de chambres à l’aide de l’instrument MEAP (Multiphasic Environmental Assessment Procedure), puis les associations entre l’état de santé des résidents, l’aspect esthétique des maisons de chambres et leur organisation.
Résultats
L’état de santé des personnes de 35 ans vivant en maison de chambres était sensiblement moins bon que celui des 35 ans et plus dans la population canadienne générale. Huit des 10 dimensions de l’état de santé individuel évaluées par le SF-36 présentaient une corrélation significative avec l’aspect esthétique de la maison de chambres où vivait la personne en question. Nous n’avons cependant constaté aucune association significative entre l’état de santé des résidents et le but lucratif ou non lucratif des maisons de chambres, le fait que les repas soient compris ou non, ou la présence ou l’absence du propriétaire sur les lieux.
Conclusions
La prévalence des problèmes de santé chez les résidents des maisons de chambres est élevée. Les résidents dont l’état de santé déclaré était le pire étaient concentrés dans les maisons de chambres les plus délabrées. Cette relation pourrait s’expliquer par des méthodes de sélection qui placent les plus malades dans les pires maisons, et/ou par l’effet direct des conditions de logement indésirables sur l’état de santé. Il faudrait pousser la recherche pour élucider ces mécanismes et améliorer la santé de ce segement vulnérable de la population.
References
- 1.Fuller-Thomson E, Hulchanski JD, Hwang S. The housing/health relationship: What do we know? Rev Environ Health. 2000;13:109–33. doi: 10.1515/reveh.2000.15.1-2.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Campsie P. Rooming Houses in the City of Toronto: Three Recent Studies. Toronto: City of Toronto Housing Department Publishing Workgroup; 1996. Perception vs. reality in the world of rooming houses. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Statistics Canada. Population in collective dwellings. 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jencks C. The Homeless. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 5.O’Flaherty B. Making Room: The Economics of Homelessness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kendall PRW. Accessibility Study of Rooming House Residents. Toronto: Department of Public Health, City of Toronto; 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 7.The Health Care Needs of Inner City Rooming House Residents. Toronto: Street Health Community Nursing Foundation, 1990.
- 8.Babiski L, Sidle N, McColl M. Challenges in achieving health for all in the boarding home sector. Can J Occupational Ther. 1996;63:33–43. doi: 10.1177/000841749606300105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.By Ourselves: A Case Study of Cityhome’s Low Income Singles. Toronto: Alternative Housing Subcommittee, City of Toronto, 1984.
- 10.Campsie P. Housing, Low-Income Tenants, and the Commonsense Revolution: The First Twelve Months. Toronto: Housing Department Publishing Workgroup, City of Toronto; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Jim Ward Associates. South St. Jamestown Needs Assessment Study. 1989. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jim Ward Associates. Making rooms into homes: An evaluation of Toronto’s Rupert Pilot Project. 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Siegal H. A descriptive portrait of the S.R.O. world. In: Erickson J, Wilhelm C, editors. Housing the Homeless. Rutgers: State University of New Jersey; 1986. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Smith SJ. Health status and the housing system. Soc Sci Med. 1990;31:753–62. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90170-W. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rooming House Handbook. Toronto: Information and Advisory Services Section, City of Toronto Housing Department, 1993.
- 16.Jr. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Information about the national population health survey. Catalogue No.: 82F0068XIE. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1999. Available at: https://doi.org/www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82F0068XIE/free.htm
- 20.Kessler RC, Mroczek D. UM-CIDI Mental health screening scales. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Moos RH, Lemke S. Evaluating Residential Facilities: The Multiphasic Environmental Assessment Procedure. London: Sage Publications; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group. CMAJ. 2000;163(3):265–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor T Eds, editors. Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hwang SW. Homelessness and health. CMAJ. 2001;164:229–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Simpson B. The Report of the Rooming House Review, City of Toronto. 1992. [Google Scholar]