Search

The vulnerability of deafblind people is considered axiomatic; they are seen not only as a vulnerable group but also as one of the most vulnerable. This paper aims to synthesise existing knowledge to determine what is known about such vulnerability. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken between April 2013 and May 2014. The review method was informed by systematic review principles. An approach based on a 'hierarchy of evidence' would have reduced the amount of literature reviewed significantly, to the point where synthesis would not be possible. Included material was appraised and an interpretative rather than aggregative approach to synthesis adopted. Drawing on principles of critical interpretive synthesis, rather than being a determiner of whether material should be included or excluded, a critique of the literature is offered within the synthesis. Twenty-eight references were identified for inclusion, originating from the UK, USA, Australia, Continental Europe and the Nordic Countries. No empirical studies specifically examining the experience of vulnerability of deafblind people were found. However, deafblind people describe feelings of vulnerability in studies exploring their experiences more generally, and in personal accounts of living with the impairment. Literature produced by practitioners and specialist organisations also explores the topic. Deafblind people are identified as a population 'at risk' of various adverse outcomes, particularly when compared to the non-deafblind majority, and deafblind people describe being and feeling vulnerable in various situations. The literature largely relates to negative outcomes and includes significantly less exploration of positive risk taking, coping capacity and resilience. Deafblind people do not appear to describe themselves as being vulnerable as a permanent state, suggesting a need for greater exploration of the experience among all sections of this heterogeneous population, with consideration of the concepts of resilience and coping capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Employment is frequently desired by persons who experience homelessness yet is often elusive. Little is known about the range and effectiveness of employment‐based interventions evaluated in existing literature on key psychosocial outcomes including employment participation, mental well‐being, housing tenure, community integration and substance use. To identify and synthesise existing studies, we conducted a systematic review of effectiveness using the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Following the removal of duplicates, we screened 13,398 titles and abstracts, and reviewed 79 studies at the full‐text review stage using two independent raters. A total of 16 studies met criteria for inclusion in a narrative synthesis and were subjected to critical appraisal. The majority of studies were conducted in the US (n = 14; 87.5%) with other studies published in Canada (n = 1; 6.3%) and Australia (n = 1; 6.3%). Interventions evaluated in existing studies included combined substance use and vocational skills interventions (n = 7; 43.8%), supported employment (n = 6; 37.5%), and integrated supports including an employment component (n = 3; 18.8%). The effectiveness of these interventions on employment, mental well‐being, housing tenure, community integration, and substance use is presented. Findings suggest that research evaluating employment interventions for persons who experience homelessness is in an early stage of development. Researchers and practitioners may consider collaborating with persons with lived experiences of homelessness and practitioners in co‐designing and modifying existing approaches to target key outcomes more effectively. Policymakers may consider allocating resources to such initiatives to further the development of practice and research aimed at supporting persons who experience homelessness to secure and sustain employment during and following homelessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]