Blog

Comparing Nose & Mouth Breathing During Exercise

Active Comparator: Nose-only breathing
Participants will be instructed to breathe only through their nose (mouth closed) during rest and submaximal exercise.
Behavioral: Nose-only breathing
Participants will breathe only through their nose (mouth closed) during rest and submaximal exercise.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
DEFIANCE: RCT of ClotTriever System Versus Anticoagulation In Deep Vein Thrombosis

Brief Summary:
This study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of an interventional strategy using the ClotTriever System to achieve and maintain vessel patency (ClotTriever Intervention Arm) versus conservative medical management using anticoagulation therapy alone (Conservative Medical Management Arm) in the treatment of subjects with symptomatic unilateral iliofemoral DVT. The study will collect data on demographics, comorbidities, details from the DVT diagnosis and treatment, and clinical outcomes through the 6-month follow up visit.

Condition or disease
Intervention/treatment
Phase

Venous Thromboembolism Deep Venous Thrombosis Post-Thrombotic Syndrome
Device: ClotTriever System Drug: Commercially available/market approved anticoagulation medication including but not limited to: Heparin Sodium, Coumadin, Rivaroxaban, Apixaban, etc.
Not Applicable

Detailed Description:
The study will compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with an interventional strategy using the ClotTriever System to achieve and maintain vessel patency (ClotTriever Intervention Arm) versus conservative medical management using anticoagulation therapy alone (Conservative Medical Management Arm) in the treatment of symptomatic unilateral iliofemoral DVT. Up to 300 subjects will be enrolled and randomized. All subjects who sign informed consent and who meet all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria will be randomized (1:1, ClotTriever Intervention Arm or Conservative Medical Management Arm).

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
The Dietary Guidelines 3 Diet Patterns Study (DG3D): Phase 2

The U.S. Dietary Guidelines (USDG) form the basis of federal nutrition programs and policy and provide valuable guidance to health initiatives and industries. The updated 2015 USDG moved away from a focus on individual nutrients to a greater focus on dietary patterns. The USDG state that healthy eating goals can be met through a variety of dietary patterns, but present healthy diet in three main ways: 1) Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern, 2) Healthy Mediterranean-Style Eating Pattern, and 3) Healthy Vegetarian Eating Pattern. Currently, US adults are falling short of the nutrition recommendations (fruit/vegetable intake, greens/beans, whole grains, etc.) set forth by the USDG and measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI). While the USDG are the basis of nutrition guidelines, the research informing these dietary pattern recommendations has largely been drawn from observational studies among mostly white populations. In addition, there has been very limited cultural-tailoring of these dietary patterns that would ensure that these diets are acceptable to diverse populations, in particular, African Americans (AAs) living in the south, who experience a disproportionate burden of chronic disease, especially type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Currently, US adults are not meeting nutrition recommendations (fruit/vegetable, whole grains, etc.) set forth by the USDG and measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).
For this study, AA adult participants with overweight/obesity and ≥three T2DM risk factors will be recruited to participate in the following aim:
Based on the findings of our formative work, conduct a one-year intervention using revised culturally tailored materials to examine differences in HEI and T2DM risk factors among participants (n=198) randomized to one of the 3 dietary patterns. This will result in community-based strategies around presenting dietary guidelines in a way to effectively meet nutrition recommendations leading to significant impacts on health among AA adults.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffClinicalTrials.gov | Endocrinology Clinical Trials | Endocrinology Studies | US National Library of Medicine
Intrapartum Glycemic Control in GDMA2

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains a common pregnancy complication, affecting 6-15% of pregnancies worldwide. The incidence of GDM is expected to continue its global upward trend in light of the growing obesity epidemic and delayed childbearing. GDM is associated with adverse short- and long-term maternal and offspring outcomes. Neonatal hypoglycemia, as a result of fetal hyperinsulinemia, occurs in up to 35% of pregnancies complicated by GDM with potential long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. In that regard, significant emphasis has been placed on the prevention of neonatal hypoglycemia through optimal maternal glycemic control. Available data are conflicting as to the contribution of intrapartum glycemia to neonatal glycemia.
Moreover, national guidelines for the management of intrapartum glucose in women with GDM are lacking. This is likely due to a lack of high-quality data on the topic. As far as we are aware, only one single center randomized controlled trial has been published on the topic. That study’s findings suggest that an approach to a more liberalized intrapartum glycemic management was not associated with a higher rate of neonatal hypoglycemia compared to a tight glycemic control regimen. We propose to replicate these findings in a different population at our institution. If this more relaxed approach to intrapartum glycemic management is confirmed to be safe to women and their babies, its clinical application has the potential to decrease the inconvenience of frequent finger pricks for our patients during labor and allow more efficient allocation of resources for the nursing staff on an already labor-intensive unit.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffClinicalTrials.gov | Endocrinology Clinical Trials | Endocrinology Studies | US National Library of Medicine
Skeletal Effects of Type 1 Diabetes on Low-Trauma Fracture Risk

Active Comparator: Type 1 Diabetics
All participants will complete 4 visits over 6-8 weeks. Visit 1 is a screening visit which includes a physical exam, a bone mineral density scan, a blood draw and an EKG. Visit 2 consists of dispensing the Tetracycline antibiotic required for the bone biopsy. Visit 3 is the bone biopsy and includes a blood draw. Visit 4 is to remove the stitches.
Procedure: Transilial bone biopsy
The transiliac bone biopsy will be performed on each subject under local anesthesia, and conscious sedation. From one skin incision located ~2cm posterior and inferior to the anterior-superior pelvic spine on one side of the pelvis, the investigators will obtain two iliac bone specimens, each 7.5 mm in diameter, cylindrical in shape, and including both inner and outer cortices and the intervening trabecular bone.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffClinicalTrials.gov | Endocrinology Clinical Trials | Endocrinology Studies | US National Library of Medicine
A Study of LY3209590 Compared to Glargine in Adult Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Who Are Starting Basal Insulin for the First Time (QWINT-1)

Cahaba Research

Birmingham, Alabama, United States, 35242

Contact    205-408-4134      

Principal Investigator: Jordan Vaughn         

Syed Research Consultants Llc

Sheffield, Alabama, United States, 35660

Contact    256-383-4473      

Principal Investigator: AARON W KARR         

AMCR Institute

Escondido, California, United States, 92025

Contact    760-466-1520      

Principal Investigator: Timothy S. Bailey         

Velocity Clinical Research, Gardena

Gardena, California, United States, 90247

Contact    213-413-2500      

Principal Investigator: Mark T. Leibowitz         

Velocity Clinical Research, Huntington Park

Huntington Park, California, United States, 90255

Contact    323-588-1990      

Principal Investigator: Stanley H. Hsia         

Velocity Clinical Research, Westlake

Los Angeles, California, United States, 90057

Contact    2134132500      

Principal Investigator: Juan Pablo Frias         

Diabetes Associates Medical Group

Orange, California, United States, 92868

Contact    714-639-1815      

Principal Investigator: IVY-JOAN MADU         

Encompass Clinical Research

Spring Valley, California, United States, 91978

Contact    619-660-9068      

Principal Investigator: Hanid Audish         

Millennium Clinical Trials

Thousand Oaks, California, United States, 91360

Contact    805-496-3322      

Principal Investigator: Edward B. Portnoy         

University Clinical Investigators, Inc.

Tustin, California, United States, 92780

Contact    714-734-7944      

Principal Investigator: John Kim         

Diablo Clinical Research, Inc.

Walnut Creek, California, United States, 94598

Contact    925-930-7267      

Principal Investigator: Mark P. Christiansen         

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Aurora, Colorado, United States, 80045

Contact    303-724-4651      

Principal Investigator: Neda Rasouli         

Chase Medical Research, LLC

Waterbury, Connecticut, United States, 06708

Contact    203-419-4420      

Principal Investigator: Joseph Soufer         

Clinical Research of West Florida, Inc. (Clearwater)

Clearwater, Florida, United States, 33765

Contact    7274660078      

Principal Investigator: Leonard Jay Dunn         

Suncoast Research Group

Miami, Florida, United States, 33135

Contact    3056316704      

Principal Investigator: Mark Eliot Kutner         

Clinical Research of West Florida

Tampa, Florida, United States, 33606

Contact    813-870-1292      

Principal Investigator: Lon D. Lynn, DO         

Center for Advanced Research & Education

Gainesville, Georgia, United States, 30501

Contact    7705345154      

Principal Investigator: Angela Dawn Ritter         

Pacific Diabetes & Endocrine Center

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, 96813

Contact    808-526-0303      

Principal Investigator: ALAN PARSA         

Central Illinois Diabetes and Clinical Research a Division of Prairie Education and Research Cooperative

Springfield, Illinois, United States, 62711

Contact    217-546-2064      

Principal Investigator: Diana Widicus         

American Health Network of Indiana, LLC – Franklin

Franklin, Indiana, United States, 46131

Contact    3177387400      

Principal Investigator: George Mitchell Cornett         

American Health Network of Indiana, LLC – Muncie

Muncie, Indiana, United States, 47304

Contact    7652132892      

Principal Investigator: Jonathan David Condit         

Iowa Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center

West Des Moines, Iowa, United States, 50265

Contact    515-329-6800      

Principal Investigator: Anuj Bhargava         

Arcturus Healthcare , PLC, Troy Internal Medicine Research Division

Troy, Michigan, United States, 48098

Contact    248-312-0025      

Principal Investigator: Neil J. Fraser         

Clinvest Research LLC

Springfield, Missouri, United States, 65807

Contact    4178837889      

Principal Investigator: David Gregory True         

University Of Nebraska Medical Center

Omaha, Nebraska, United States, 68198-4130

Contact    402-559-6276      

Principal Investigator: Cyrus Desouza         

Mid Hudson Medical Research

New Windsor, New York, United States, 12553

Principal Investigator: Sashi K. Makam         

Meridian Clinical Research, LLC

Vestal, New York, United States, 13850

Contact    607-794-5790      

Principal Investigator: Suchet R. Patel         

Alliance for Multispecialty Research, LLC

Norman, Oklahoma, United States, 73069

Contact    405-701-8999      

Principal Investigator: Lisa Connery         

Cascade Physicians

Tualatin, Oregon, United States, 97062

Contact    5035163837      

Principal Investigator: J. Thomas Forsythe         

Diabetes & Endocrinology Consultants of Pennsylvania, LLC

Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania, United States, 19053

Contact    215-953-6804      

Principal Investigator: Arvind Cavale         

Preferred Primary Care Physicians, Preferred Clinical Research (Ofc 18)

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15236

Contact    412-650-6155      

Principal Investigator: Bryce A. Palchick         

WR-Clinsearch, LLC

Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States, 37397

Contact    423-698-4584      

Principal Investigator: Mark McKenzie         

Private Practice – Dr. Osvaldo A. Brusco

Corpus Christi, Texas, United States, 78414

Contact    3618850448      

Principal Investigator: Osvaldo Alejandro Brusco         

Velocity Clinical Research, Dallas

Dallas, Texas, United States, 75230

Contact    972-566-7799      

Principal Investigator: Julio Rosenstock         

Prime Revival Research Institute

Flower Mound, Texas, United States, 75028

Contact    214-432-1198      

Principal Investigator: WASIM A. HAQUE         

Endocrine Associates

Houston, Texas, United States, 77004

Contact    713-520-1110      

Principal Investigator: Gerardo Bueso         

Endocrine Ips, Pllc

Houston, Texas, United States, 77079

Contact    713-973-3415      

Principal Investigator: Amer S Al-Karadsheh         

North Hills Family Medicine/North Hills Medical Research

North Richland Hills, Texas, United States, 76180

Contact    817-595-3399      

Principal Investigator: John Gabriel         

Texas Valley Clinical Research

Weslaco, Texas, United States, 78596

Contact    9564318090      

Principal Investigator: Eduardo Dusty Luna         

Eastside Research Associates

Redmond, Washington, United States, 98052

Contact    425-869-6828      

Principal Investigator: Chad Crystal         

Centro de Investigaciones Metabólicas (CINME)

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aire, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1056

Contact    00541150319914      

Principal Investigator: Federico C. Perez Manghi         

Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas Mar del Plata

Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7600

Contact    542234963224      

Principal Investigator: Virginia L. Sernia         

DIM Clínica Privada

Ramos Mejía, Buenos Aires, Argentina, B1704ETD

Contact    541146562828      

Principal Investigator: Alejandra Camino         

Go Centro Medico San Nicolás

San Nicolas, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2900

Contact    5493364571637      

Principal Investigator: Paulina Virginia Lanchiotti         

Asociación de Beneficencia Hospital Sirio Libanés

Buenos Aires, Buenos Air, Argentina, C1419AHN

Contact    541145740870      

Principal Investigator: Gustavo Daniel Frechtel         

Stat Research S.A.

Capital Federal, Buenos Air, Argentina, 1023

Contact    54114816673      

Principal Investigator: Lucas Lisandro Gutnisky         

Centro Médico Viamonte

Buenos Aires, Ciudad Aut, Argentina, C1120AAC

Contact    541149635650      

Principal Investigator: Diego Aizenberg         

Glenny Corp

Buenos Aires, Ciudad Aut, Argentina, C1430CKE

Contact    01145445522      

Principal Investigator: Martin Horacio Koretzky         

CEMEDIAB

C.a.b.a., Ciudad Aut, Argentina, C1205AAO

Contact    54911440547      

Principal Investigator: Alejandro Mario Chertkoff         

Investigaciones Medicas Imoba Srl

Buenos Aires, Ciudad Autónoma De Buenos Aire, Argentina, C1179AAB

Contact    541149831589      

Principal Investigator: Silvia Ines Orio         

CIPREC

Caba, Ciudad Autónoma De Buenos Aire, Argentina, C1061AAS

Contact    5491128690843      

Principal Investigator: Fernando Pedro Guerlloy         

Centro Medico Dra. Laura Maffei- Investigacion Clinica Aplicada

Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aire, Ciudad Autónoma De Buenos Aire, Argentina, C1425AGC

Contact    541148019001      

Principal Investigator: Maria Jimena Coronel         

Centro Medico Privado San Vicente Diabetes

Cordoba, Córdoba, Argentina, 5006

Contact    03514584601      

Principal Investigator: MARIA ANDREA STEINACHER         

Instituto Médico Río Cuarto

Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina, 5800

Contact    0358154223269      

Principal Investigator: Rodrigo Carnero         

CIPADI – Centro Integral de Prevencion y Atencion en Diabetes

Godoy Cruz, Mendoza, Argentina, M5501ARP

Contact    542614200345      

Principal Investigator: Pedro Rosario Fabian Calella         

Instituto Médico Fundación Grupo Colaborativo Rosario Investigación y Prevención Medica

Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina, 2000

Contact    543416928531      

Principal Investigator: Horacio Angel Sessa         

Clínica Mayo

San Miguel de Tucuman, Tucumán, Argentina, 4000

Contact    5493815437454      

Principal Investigator: Maria Eugenia Valdez         

Fundación Respirar

Buenos Aires, Argentina, C1426ABP

Contact    541170781548      

Principal Investigator: Maria Cristina De Salvo         

CENUDIAB

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aire, Argentina, C1440AAD

Contact    1146820269      

Principal Investigator: Alejandra Isabel Oviedo         

Centro de Diagnóstico y Rehabilitación (CEDIR)

Santa Fe, Argentina, 3000

Contact    5493424087292      

Principal Investigator: Antonio Enrique Saleme         

Sanatorio Norte

Santiago del Estero, Argentina, 4200

Contact    0384154125573      

Principal Investigator: Franklin Hector Abalos         

RM Pharma Specialists

Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico, 3100

Contact    525565501629      

Principal Investigator: Mariana Zolandi Crespo Hernández         

Instituto Jalisciense de Investigacion en Diabetes y Obesidad

Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, 04460

Contact    523336153477      

Principal Investigator: Guillermo G. Gonzalez Galvez         

Diseno y Planeacion en Investigacion Medica

Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, 44130

Contact    5233305493      

Principal Investigator: Cesar Gonzalo Calvo         

Instituto de Diabetes, Obesidad y Nutricion

Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico, 62250

Contact    7771022899      

Principal Investigator: Leobardo Sauque Reyna         

Hospital Universitario “Dr. Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez”

Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, 64460

Contact    528183483220      

Principal Investigator: Jose Gerardo Gonzalez-Gonzalez         

Hospital Universitario “Dr. Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez”

Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, 66460

Contact    528183482015      

Principal Investigator: Pedro Alberto Garcia         

Unidad Médica para la Salud Integral

San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, Mexico, 66465

Contact    52818348897      

Principal Investigator: Ramiro Guadalupe Banda Elizondo         

Medical Care and Research SA de CV

Merida, Yucatán, Mexico, 97070

Contact    9999203879      

Principal Investigator: Carlos Eduardo Medina         

Investigacion En Salud Y Metabolismo Sc

Chihuahua, Mexico, 31217

Contact    526144398618      

Principal Investigator: Luis Alejandro Nevarez         

Ponce Medical School Foundation Inc.

Ponce, Puerto Rico, 00716

Contact    17878402505      

Principal Investigator: Elizabeth A. Barranco-Santana         

Latin Clinical Trial Center

San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00909

Contact    7879859911      

Principal Investigator: Alex Gonzalez-Bossolo         

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffClinicalTrials.gov | Endocrinology Clinical Trials | Endocrinology Studies | US National Library of Medicine
Use of Control-IQ Technology 2.0 in Adults, Children, and Preschoolers With Type 1 Diabetes

Experimental: Control-IQ 2.0 Alternate Target
Participants will use t:slim X2 pump with Control-IQ technology 2.0 at an alternate target for two weeks.
Device: t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology 2.0
t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology 2.0, and wearing the Dexcom G6 sensor.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffClinicalTrials.gov | Endocrinology Clinical Trials | Endocrinology Studies | US National Library of Medicine
Evaluation of IGM-7354 in Adults With Relapsed and/or Refractory Cancer

Patients will be enrolled in two stages: a dose-escalation stage and an expansion stage. The escalation stage will investigate single agent IGM-7354 safety and tolerability in patients with relapsed and/or refractory solid tumors. The dose expansion serial biopsy cohort will assess the intra-tumoral PD changes related to the activity of IGM-7354.

IGM-7354 will be administered intravenously (IV).

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 28, 2023Comments OffClinicalTrials.gov | Oncology Clinical Trials | Oncology Studies | US National Library of Medicine
Investigating Cardiac Health of Adults With Trauma

This project will test whether a healthy lifestyle intervention, specifically designed for adults with posttraumatic stress and identified cardiovascular risks, is effective in improving cardiovascular health. Therefore, this study will provide information needed to evaluate the potential benefits of cognitive-behavioral lifestyle interventions for addressing barriers to healthy behavior in this at-risk population and reducing risks for heart disease.
Detailed Description:
Considerable research has indicated strong associations between posttraumatic stress and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) tend to show patterns of elevated CVD risk earlier in life than in the general population. The need for developing effective interventions for CVD risk-reduction in PTSD is increasingly evident. In comparison to the cumulative evidence concerning elevated CVD risk in PTSD, relatively little research has addressed CVD risk-reduction in this population. Adjunctive treatments, such as health behavior interventions, may be necessary as supplements to traditional psychotherapy for PTSD in order to reduce CVD risks. The objective of the proposed project is to examine the effects of a healthy lifestyle intervention that addresses multiple CVD-related heath behaviors among civilian adults across genders (ages 18+), who evidence PTSD and CVD risk at baseline. The investigators will assess the intervention impact on both subjective and objective indices of health behaviors, cardiovascular risks and CVD markers over a one-year timeframe. The healthy lifestyle intervention addresses unique aspects of PTSD symptom presentation that serve as barriers to healthy behaviors (e.g., nightmares/sleep disruption, and cognitive responses to stress), while encouraging healthy lifestyle changes. The primary goal of the present study is to examine whether, compared to a usual care psychotherapy control condition, utilizing the healthy lifestyle intervention as an adjunct to psychotherapy will result in significantly reduced CVD risks and improved CVD markers among civilian adults with PTSD and elevated CVD risks. Therefore, participants will be randomly assigned to either a usual care psychotherapy-only control condition or a usual care psychotherapy plus healthy lifestyle intervention condition. Outcomes will be assessed at post-intervention (12 weeks), as well as 6-month and 12-month time points for follow-up evaluation.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 27, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project

Number of days experiencing homelessness [ Time Frame: At 6 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Number of days experiencing homelessness [ Time Frame: At 12 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Number of days experiencing homelessness [ Time Frame: At 18 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Number of days experiencing homelessness [ Time Frame: At 27 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Number of days experiencing homelessness [ Time Frame: At 30 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Number of days experiencing homelessness [ Time Frame: At 36 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Time to stable housing from randomization [ Time Frame: Up to 24 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who obtain stable housing [ Time Frame: At 6 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who obtain stable housing [ Time Frame: At 12 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who obtain stable housing [ Time Frame: At 18 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who obtain stable housing [ Time Frame: At 24 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who retain stable housing after the end of the 24-month intervention period [ Time Frame: At 27 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who retain stable housing after the end of the 24-month intervention period [ Time Frame: At 30 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Proportion of families who retain stable housing after the end of the 24-month intervention period [ Time Frame: At 36 months after randomization ]
‘Stable housing’ will be defined as any form of housing that does not meet the definition of ‘experiencing homelessness’ as above

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At baseline ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At 6 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At 12 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At 18 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At 24 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At 30 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: At 36 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Time series analysis of days experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily in an institution

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Time series analysis of days residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent residing in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Time series analysis of proportion of families who are unleased [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Will assess change in proportion of families who are unleased over time (i.e, residing in a space without a lease)

Change in proportion of families who are unleased at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Change in proportion of families who are unleased at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Change in proportion of families who are unleased at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Residing in a space without any legal right to the space (i.e., residing in a space without a lease)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Time series analysis of days doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Number of days spent in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing)

Total proportion of families experiencing any homelessness [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Time series analysis of proportion of families experiencing any homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of of families experiencing homelessness for ≥1 night during study period

Total proportion of families ever experiencing unsheltered homelessness [ Time Frame: At 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Time series analysis of proportion of families experiencing unsheltered homelessness in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a homeless shelter, in a place not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station, or temporarily, in an institution for ≥1 night during study period

Total proportion of families ever residing in a hotel or motel [ Time Frame: At 24 months after randomization; and changes between baseline and 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months after randomization; and changes between 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Time series analysis of proportion of families residing in a hotel or motel in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families living in a hotel or motel as a form of temporary housing for ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Time series analysis of proportion of families doubled up in previous 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families in a shared living situation intended to be temporary (‘doubled up’ with a friend or relative due to being unable to find or afford own housing) ≥1 night during study period

Total proportion of families returning to a homeless shelter [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families with any return to a homeless shelter at any time between randomization and the end of the 24-month study period. Assessed only in the subgroup of families who reported living in a shelter at baseline.

Total proportion of families returning to a homeless shelter [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families with any return to a homeless shelter at any time between 24 months and 36 months after randomization. Assessed only in the subgroup of families who reported living in a shelter at baseline.Assessed only in the subgroup of families who reported living in a shelter at baseline.

Total proportion of families living in a homeless shelter [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Proportion of families who report any stay in a homeless shelter at baseline

Total proportion of families living in a homeless shelter [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families who report any stay in a homeless shelter after randomization and before the end of the 24-month intervention period

Total proportion of families living in a homeless shelter [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion of families who report any stay in a homeless shelter at the end of the 36-month data collection period

Change in total proportion of families living in a homeless shelter from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months ]
Proportion of families who report any stay in a homeless shelter at baseline vs 24 months

Change in total proportion of families living in a homeless shelter from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months ]
Proportion of families who report any stay in a homeless shelter at baseline vs 36 months

Change in total proportion of families living in a homeless shelter from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months ]
Proportion of families who report any stay in a homeless shelter at 24 vs 36 months

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Time series analysis of proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Change in proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses at baseline vs 24 months (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Change in proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses at baseline vs 36 months (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Change in proportion of monthly income spent on housing-related expenses at 24 vs 36 months (composite of expenses for rent, mortgage, other shelter, and/or hotel/motel) [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Housing affordability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Housing stability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Time series analysis of number of moves in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Time series analysis of number of moves out of Santa Clara County in prior 6 months [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Housing stability

Monthly household expenditures [ Time Frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Proportion/amount of monthly expenses on key household expenditure categories, assessed through selected questions adapted from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures Survey

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Physical well-being [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Time series analysis of physical well-being [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Change in physical well-being at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Change in physical well-being at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Change in physical well-being at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Short-Form 12 v2 (SF12v2). The SF12v2 data calculate two summary component scores, Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary Score (MCS) with eight sub-domains. Scores range from 0 to 100, where a zero score indicates the lowest level of health and 100 indicates the highest level of health.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Psychological well-being [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Time series analysis of psychological well-being [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Change in psychological well-being at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Change in psychological well-being at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Change in psychological well-being at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Kessler 6 (K6) scale. Each of the six items of the K6 is scored using a 5-level response scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = none of the time, 1 = a little of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = all of the time). The six items are summed to yield a total score with a range between zero and 24 with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Overcrowding [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Time series analysis of overcrowding [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Change in overcrowding at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Change in overcrowding at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Change in overcrowding at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
People per room excluding bathrooms and kitchens. A higher number of people per room is associated with increased overcrowding.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Time series analysis of housing quality [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Change in housing quality from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements from baseline and 24 months ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Change in housing quality from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements from baseline and 36 months ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Change in housing quality from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements from 24 and 36 months ]
Measured through proportion of households describing overall housing condition as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Measured only in the subset of households who respond that they are currently living in a house, apartment/condo, garage, or basement.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Time series analysis of housing quality: infrastructure and appliances [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Change in housing quality: infrastructure and appliances from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements from baseline and at 24 months ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Change in housing quality: infrastructure and appliances from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements from baseline and at 36 months ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Change in housing quality: infrastructure and appliances from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements from 24 months and at 36 months ]
Composite score assessing presence of a working stove/cooktop, refrigerator, kitchen sink, hot and cold water, bathroom sink with running water, toilet, and bathtub/shower. Range of total items present is 0-7, with higher score suggesting higher housing quality in terms of infrastructure and appliances. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Time series analysis of housing quality: safety issues [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Change in housing quality: safety issues from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and at 24 months ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Change in housing quality: safety issues from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and at 36 months ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Change in housing quality: safety issues from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months ]
Composite score assessing presence of exposed electrical wiring (or lack thereof), mildew/water damage, flooring problems, holes/cracks, bad odors, bathroom plumbing problems, nonfunctioning toilet, electrical outages, lack of heating, rodents, cockroaches. Range of potential safety problems present is 0-11, with higher score suggesting worse housing safety. Adapted from composite measures of material hardship from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Time series analysis of financial well-being [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Change in financial well-being from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Change in financial well-being from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Change in financial well-being from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being survey. The ten items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with each answer scored 0-4. A raw score is calculated from the sum of the ten items (range 0-40); the raw score is converted to a financial well-being score with adjustments for age and mode of survey administration. The range of financial well-being scores in adults 18 and older is 16-91 with higher scores corresponding to higher financial well-being.

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Time series analysis of financial well-being (emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Change in financial well-being (emergency expenses) at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Change in financial well-being (emergency expenses) at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Change in financial well-being (emergency expenses) at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $400 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED).

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Time series analysis of financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Change in financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Change in financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Change in financial well-being (larger emergency expenses) at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ they could handle a $2000 emergency expense in the next month. Adapted from the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (or SHED) and Urban Institute Survey of Well-Being and Basic Needs. This question is asked only of the subset of households who respond they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ confident they could handle a $400 expense in the next month.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Time series analysis of financial well-being (monthly finances) [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Change in financial well-being (monthly finances) at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Change in financial well-being (monthly finances) at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Change in financial well-being (monthly finances) at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Measured through proportion of families responding they have ‘just enough money to make ends meet’ or ‘some money left over’ at the end of each month, as an indicator of stable monthly finances. Adapted from the Family Options Study.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Material hardship [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Time series analysis of material hardship [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Change over time in composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Change in material hardship from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Change in composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Change in material hardship from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Change in composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Change in material hardship from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Change in composite score assessing the presence of: use of payday loan, overdrawn checking account, missed credit card payment, missed loan payment, contacted by a debt collection agency, late gas/electric bill payment, gas/electricity turned off due to non-payment, late phone bill payment, phone service turned off due to non-payment, difficulty paying medical bills, late rent/mortgage payment, and partial rent/mortgage payment. Range of material hardship domains is 0-11 with higher score associated with material hardship. Individual items are adapted from questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Urban Institute Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Time series analysis of total debt to monthly income ratio [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Change in total debt to monthly income ratio at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Change in total debt to monthly income ratio at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Change in total debt to monthly income ratio at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Sum of total debt (composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage) divided by reported average monthly income. A higher ratio indicates a higher burden of debt relative to monthly income.

Total debt [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 6 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 12 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 18 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 24 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 27 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 30 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Total debt [ Time Frame: 36 months ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Time series analysis of total debt [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Change in total debt at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Change in total debt at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Change in total debt at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Total self-reported debt (dollar amount, composite of balance of loans/credit card debt, balance for overdue bills, and balance for overdue rent/mortgage). A higher amount indicates a higher burden of debt.

Household food security [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Household food security [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Time series analysis of household food security [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Change in household food security from baseline to 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Change in household food security from baseline to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Change in household food security from 24 to 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. Responses to each of the six items are coded as ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’, with each affirmative response assigned a score of 1. Scores are summed across the six items to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating lower household food security.

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Self-efficacy [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Time series analysis of self-efficacy [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Change in self-efficacy at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Change in self-efficacy at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Change in self-efficacy at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale; the total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items (range 6-24) with a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy

Resilience [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Resilience [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Time series analysis of resilience [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Change in resilience from baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Change in resilience from baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Change in resilience from 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items divided by 6 (range 1-5). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Perceived stress [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Time series analysis of perceived stress [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Change in perceived stress at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Change in perceived stress at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Change in perceived stress at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 0-16), with higher scores correlating to more stress

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Time series analysis of Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Change in Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Change in Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Change in Chaos, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Validated measure of household environment. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The total score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6-30) with higher scores corresponding to higher household chaos.

Agency [ Time Frame: Baseline ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 6 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 12 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 18 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 24 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 27 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 30 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Agency [ Time Frame: 36 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Time series analysis of agency [ Time Frame: Times series will include measurements at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 27 months, 30 months, 36 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Change in agency at baseline vs 24 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 24 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Change in agency at baseline vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at baseline and 36 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Change in agency at 24 vs 36 months [ Time Frame: Will include measurements at 24 and 36 months after randomization ]
Adult State Hope Scale (modified from the Future Scale). Items are scored from 1-8. The total hope score is calculated from the sum of all items (range 6 to 48) with higher scores representing higher hope levels. The agency sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 2, 4, 6 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of agency thinking. The pathways sub scale score is calculated from the sum of items 1, 3, and 5 (range 3 to 24) with higher scores indicating higher levels of pathways thinking.

Source: View full study details on ClinicalTrials.gov

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. By listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

January 27, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine