Table 3.

General characteristics of the reviewed literature.

Citation Location	Purpose 1	Research Design 2 STUDY TYPE (Research Design) -Data Sources (See *#) -Sample size—Sampling Approach -Age (Years) | Participant Details | Time Housed	Rigor	Housing 3 -Type/Program -Site Approach -Dwelling Type	Scale 4 Dwelling, Room, Building, Location
					D	R	B	L
Relevance: Design Driven (2)
McLane et al., 2020 [27] U.S. (Tallahassee); UK (Southampton)	Recorded and explored socio-spatial and design factors, policies and programming, and resident perceptions of shared community gathering space location, design, and use in two PSH facilities with the aim of presenting new analysis methods and improving future shared spaces.	MIXED (Dual case study; CS) -Space syntax, questionnaires, open-ended interviews, photography -n = 38 residents and staff—Convenience [12 staff and 23 residents (6 not formerly homeless)] 28 surveys, 18 interviews -Participant details and time housed not specified	Medium QUAN-Low QUAL-Med	-PSH -SS -Ind apt, Cong		•	•
Wittman et al., 2017 [71] U.S. (review article)	Provided an overview of Housing First (HF) and Sober Living Housing (SLH) models and recommendations for practice based on an approach to architectural planning that emphasized the interaction between settings and operations on resident experiences.	REVIEW (not specified) -Source types: Existing literature; authors’ own research and practice providing residential substance abuse and mental health services; architectural planning papers that emphasize the interaction of settings and operations to achieve service goals; and authors’ involvement in national organization forums about housing models for homeless persons	Low	-HF, SL -SS, Scat -Varies	•	•	•	•
Relevance: BE Focus (8)
Adair et al., 2016 [38] Canada (Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver)	Assessed housing quality in Housing First (HF) and Treatment as Usual (TAU) facilities, examined differences between participants in each group, and studied associations between housing quality and housing stability.	QUANTITATIVE (Quasi-Experimental, Longitudinal—2 yrs) -Observer ratings *, publicly available data, interview questions -n = 438 adults in 4 cities—RS (TAU = 228, HF = 204) -42 | 63% female | At least 2 months housed	High	-HF, TAU -SS, Scat, Priv Mkt -Cong, SRO, Apt (ind, shrd)	•		•	•
Brown et al., 2015 [72] U.S. (Seattle)	Explored perceptions of housing and neighborhood environments and associations with satisfaction (high/low desire to stay) among single-site Housing First residents via the Housing Environment Survey.	MIXED (2-group comparison, CS) -Participant ratings *, open-ended interviews -n = 33 adults (30 interviews)—Convenience -43 | 72% male | 61% White 82% psychotic disorder | 61% substance use disorder | 3 yrs housed (SD = 313 days), on average	Low QUAN-Med QUAL-Low	-HF, PSH -SS -Apt (75 Ind)	•	•		•
Hsu et al., 2016 [73] U.S. (Los Angeles)	Examined perceptions of safety and security among residents living in and surrounding the Skid Row area of Los Angeles and how those perceptions correlated with objective measures of neighborhood environment.	MIXED (Explanatory sequential; CS) -Semi-structured interviews, block-based neighborhood characteristic ratings -n = 24 adults (long-term homelessness)—Criterion sampling -50 | 67% male | 71% Black, 0% White | 54% experienced victimization | 3 months housed	Low QUAN-Low QUAL-Med	-HF, PSH -SS (8 projects) -Not specified	•		•	•
Huffman, 2018 [26] U.S. (Los Angeles)	Investigated the connection between PSH social spaces, participation, and community based on resident experiences in a housing organization on Skid Row in Los Angeles, California.	QUALITATIVE (Case study, CS) -Pragmatic field work (1.5 yrs), semi-structured interviews, primary cycle analysis # -n = 26 of 100 residents—Convenience -60 (avg. for all 100 residents) | Time housed not specified	High	-HF, PSH -SS -Ind apt		•
Knight et al., 2014 [36] U.S. (San Francisco)	Explored how SROs can operate as “mental health risk environments” in which macro-structural factors (housing policies shaping the built environment) interact with meso-level factors (social relations within SROs) and micro-level, behavioral coping strategies to affect women’s mental health.	QUALITATIVE (Longitudinal, Ethnography—4 yrs) # -Interviews (baseline, 12, 18 months), photo-ethnographic study of SRO rooms -n = 30 women—Purposeful from larger study -Co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues | Extensive histories of victimization | Time housed not specified	High	-Varies -SS -SRO hotel	•			•
Nelson et al., 2007 [74] Canada (Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa)	Examined whether consumer choice and control over housing, support, and housing quality contributed to self-reported quality of life and adaptation to community living among people with mental illness, and whether individual apartments provided more choice and control than group living arrangements.	QUANTITATIVE (Repeated measures, CS) * -Structured interview + 9-month follow-up -n = 130 adults (90 = follow-up interviews)—Convenience (97 = independent apartments, 33 = congregate housing) -41 | 58% male | 209 days (15–2042 days) housed, on average	Med	-Supported -SS, Scat -Apt (ind, shrd)	•		•
Tsai et al., 2010 [75] U.S. (Chicago)	Examined whether housing preferences differed between substance abuse treatment stages, whether dual-diagnoses consumers who prefer certain housing types preferred certain characteristics, and whether consumers residing in different housing types reported differences in choice, social support, and housing satisfaction.	QUANTITATIVE (Group comparison, CS) -Questionnaires * -n = 103 dual-diagnoses consumers—Convenience (65 supervised, 38 community, 22 ind apt, 11 SRO, 5 family) -45 | 75% male | 57% Black | Time housed not specified	Med	-Not specified -Not specified -Supervised, Ind apt, SRO	•		•	•
Tsai et al., 2012 [76] U.S. (11 sites, locations not specified)	Identified primary domains of housing satisfaction (HS), tracked HS over time, and assessed relations between HS and subjective and functional outcomes.	QUANTITATIVE (Longitudinal: quarterly for 2 yrs) -Structured interviews, questionnaires -n = 756 (11 sites)—Criterion sampling -45 | 75% male | 62% Minority | Time housed varied	High	-HF, PSH -Varies -Not specified			•	•
Relevance: Inductive (6)
Anucha, 2005 [77] Canada (Toronto)	Explored the needs of the formerly homeless, from their perspective, and how housing, neighborhood, and community can meet their needs more effectively to avoid a return to homelessness.	QUALITATIVE (Exploratory, CS) -Open-ended interviews, thematic analysis -n = 106 “hard-to-house adults”—Convenience -45 | 60% male | 68% White | ≥3 months housed	Low	-HF (2 programs) -SS (2 buildings) -Cong.	•		•	•
Burns et al., 2020 [78] Canada (Montreal)	Explored everyday experiences of formerly homeless older men residing in single-site PSH based on the concepts of home and social exclusion.	QUALITATIVE (Const. grounded theory, CS) -Semi-structured/in-depth interviews -n = 10 males—Provider recruited -55–70 | 90% substance abuse | Time housed not specified	High	-PSH, SL -SS -SRO	•	•
Chan, 2020 [79] U.S. (Boston, Cambridge)	Explored what makes supportive housing feel like “home” for individuals who were once homeless related to constructing new, non-homeless identities, social isolation, and community integration.	QUALITATIVE (Repeated measures, CS) -Drawing, 2 semi-structured interviews # -n = 37 adults—Convenience (15 ind apt, 17 SRO, 5 cong apt) -52 | 54% female | 51% White | 92% physical disability | -67% psychological disability | 4 yrs housed (1 month–16 yrs), on average	Med	-HF, PSH -SS, Scat -SRO, Ind apt, Cong apt with 1–2 roommates	•	•	•
Henwood et al., 2018a [80] U.S. (Los Angeles)	Considered how contextual factors generate or reduce risk for substance use among adults who recently moved into PSH.	QUALITATIVE (Case summary matrix, CS) -Ethnographic shadowing (3.5 h) -n = 27 adults—Purposeful (risk profiles) from a larger study -55 | 59% male | 59% Black | 22–59% MH diagnoses | Time housed not specified	Med	-HF, PSH -SS, Scat -Ind apt	•			•
Henwood et al., 2018b [81] U.S. (Los Angeles)	Used ontological security (well-being rooted in a sense of constancy in the social and material environment) as a sensitizing framework to examine the perspectives and experiences of young adult PSH residents.	QUALITATIVE (Grounded theory, CS) -Semi-structured interviews # -n = 29 young adults—Convenience -23 (18–25) | 62% male | 14% White | 68% heterosexual | 18 months housed, on average	Med	-PSH -SS (4 buildings) -Ind apt	•
Padgett, 2007 [82] U.S. (New York City)	Explored how study participants who obtained independent housing experience, enact and describe having a “home” and to what extent their experiences reflect markers of ontological security.	QUALITATIVE (Grounded theory, CS) -2 life-history interviews (2nd for accuracy) with control group comparison # -n = 39 participants with DSM Axis 1 disorder—Purposeful -(HF = 21, TF = 18) -48 | 67% male | 41% White | 90% co-occurring substance use | Time housed varied	High	-HF, TF, Supervised -Ind apt, rooms in transitional “treatment housing”	•		•	•
Relevance: Mentions (1)
Adame et al., 2020 [83] U.S. (Seattle)	Interviewed residents of a Housing First organization about their experiences of community and gathered suggestions for improving community building efforts.	QUALITATIVE (Exploratory, CS) -Focus groups, interviews, thematic analysis # -n = 38 residents—Convenience -56 | 66% male | 47% White | 4 yrs, avg. (1 month–23 yrs)	Med	-HF, PSH -SS (8 buildings) -Not specified (SRO or ind)		•		•
Table Notes and Abbreviations * = Psychometrics were reported for the quantitative measure(s) used to collect independent and/or dependent variables. # = Qualitative methods included procedures that addressed rigor in data collection, coding, and/or analysis. 1 = “Purpose” column: HF = Housing First; HQ = housing quality; PSH = permanent supportive housing; TF = Treatment First; SLH = Sober Living Housing; TAU = Treatment as Usual		2 = “Research Design” column: MIXED= mixed methods; CS= cross-sectional 3 = “Housing” column: Type/Program: PSH= permanent supportive housing; HF = Housing First; TF = Treatment First; TAU = Treatment as Usual; SL = Sober Living Site approach: SS = single site; Scat = scattered site; Priv Mkt = private market Dwelling type: SRO = single-room occupancy; Cong = congregate housing; Apt = apartment; Ind = independent; Shrd = shared 4 = “Spatial Scale” column: D = dwelling unit; R = room (shared common area); B = building; L = location