Table 18.

Summary of findings table for the effects of abstinence‐contingent housing with day treatment versus abstinence‐contingent housing with community reinforcement approach (Smith 1998; Milby 2010)

Patient or population: homeless adults with substance abuse Setting: USA Intervention: abstinence‐contingent housing with day treatment Comparison: abstinence‐contingent housing with community reinforcement approach
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with abstinence‐contingent housing with community reinforcement approach	Risk with abstinence‐contingent housing with day treatment
Mean decrease in proportion homelessness assessed with: Not reported follow up: 4 months	The rate of homelessness in the intervention group (13.7%) was lower than that in the control group (34%) (χ²(1, N=86)=5.10, p=0.024). There was little or no difference at 12 month follow up.	‐	106 (1 RCT)	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW1 , 2
Proportion of participants housed more than 40 of past 60 days assessed with: Retrospective Housing, Employment and Substance Abuse Treatment Interview (RHESAT) follow up: 18 months	A greater proportion of participants in the intervention group (44.7%) were housed more than 40 of the previous 60 days at 18 months than in the control group (35.6%). Furthermore, there was a greater increase in pro‐portion of participants housed 40 of the previous 60 days from baseline to 18 months in the intervention group (36%) than in the control group (25.7%).	‐	206 (1 RCT)	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW2 , 3
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).CI: Confidence interval

^1.Risk of detection and selection bias. Inadequate reporting of allocation concealment methods.

^2.Less than 400 participants.

^3.Risk of detection bias, selection bias, and performance bias.