Cardiology

Headache Relief Shampoo Voted #1 Best New Product in 2019

headache relief shampoo bottles

Dr. D’s Medicated Headache Relief Shampoo is now available. This medicated shampoo will help alleviate headaches simply by soaking it on your head. Finding relief from minor to severe headaches shouldn’t always involve reaching for a bottle of pills. Dr. D is here to give you another option. Our proprietary formula will leave your head feeling better.

BUY NOW! http://headachereliefshampoo.com/product/headache-relief-shampoo/

January 1, 2019Comments OffHeadache Drug Trial | Headache Relief | Headache Shampoo | Headache Study | Headache Therapy
The U.K. Embryologist Fatigue Study

Embryologist fatigue surveys conducted in Spain, the United States, and the international survey of embryologists from 85 countries reported that embryologists experience work-related fatigue, stress, and burnout. They named those as contributing factors to decreased efficiency, cynicism, and emotional exhaustion, which, together with having to handle the increasing cycle volume using conventional, manual protocols of cryomanagement, can lead to human error and IVF incidents. The known IVF incidents resulted in lost, damaged, or misplaced embryos and gametes, lawsuits, and reputational damage to patients and providers. In the absence of a “better than” cryopreservation storage solution, many programs just turned to buying more tanks and alarms and/or added expensive staff. The more effective solutions should focus on optimizing workflows by adopting innovation like automation and a digital chain of custody, organizational changes that will lead to a more productive, collaborative, and rewarding work environment, allowing embryologists to focus on patient care, scientific research, innovation, and career planning, and fewer incidents and lawsuits.
The purpose of this cross-sectional study using a web-based survey is to determine physical and mental health issues of U.K. embryologists related to their occupational characteristics, and how workplace fatigue and burnout may affect their quality of life, cynicism, interactions with patients, attention to detail, and lead to human error, the cause of the most severe IVF incidents that often make headlines and result in costly litigation. It will also correlate how the current manual workflows contribute to these health issues, and what measures can be taken to improve both working conditions and embryologists’ health, and, therefore, improve patient care.

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.

February 2, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
Outcomes of Functional Substrate Mapping of Ventricular Tachycardia

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. 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.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05708131

Recruitment Status : **RECRUITING NOW**
First Posted : February 1, 2023
Last Update Posted : February 1, 2023

Sponsor:

Collaborator:

Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust

Go to 

Brief Summary:
The goal of this registry database is to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of functional ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation using SENSE protocol in patients with ischaemic VT. Mortality and the need for ICD therapies at 12 months post-ablation will be compared with propensity-matched controls undergoing substrate-based ablation alone.

Ventricular Tachycardia

Detailed Description:
This is an international multicentre prospective registry. Participating centres will collect data during the pre-assessment, procedure, and follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months, according to standard practice. It is anticipated that the enrolment duration will be approximately 12 months, with the data being matched with that collected from a control group of patients undergoing conventional Ventricular tachycardia ablation methods.

Go to 

Layout table for study information

Study Type :
Observational [Patient Registry]

Estimated Enrollment :
70 participants

Observational Model:
Case-Control

Time Perspective:
Prospective

Target Follow-Up Duration:
12 Months

Official Title:
Outcomes of Functional Substrate Mapping of Ventricular Tachycardia (Func-VT) – an International Propensity-matched Prospective Registry

Actual Study Start Date :
July 13, 2022

Estimated Primary Completion Date :
December 1, 2023

Estimated Study Completion Date :
December 1, 2024

Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine

Go to 

Go to 

Primary Outcome Measures :

Composite of cardiovascular mortality and ICD therapy [ Time Frame: 12 months ]
Composite of cardiovascular mortality and ICD therapy

Secondary Outcome Measures :

Length of hospital stay [ Time Frame: 1 month ]
Length of hospital stay

LV function on echocardiogram [ Time Frame: 6 months ]
LV function on echocardiogram

Go to 

Information from the National Library of Medicine
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Layout table for eligibility information

Ages Eligible for Study:  
18 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)

Sexes Eligible for Study:  
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers:  
No

Sampling Method:  
Non-Probability Sample

Hospital

Inclusion Criteria:
One of the following VT events (within the last 6 months) + Ejection Fraction <40%:
A: ≥3 episodes of VT treated with anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), at least one of which is symptomatic.
B: ≥1 appropriate ICD shock. C: ≥3 VT episodes within 24 hr. D: Sustained VT below the detection rate of the ICD.
Exclusion Criteria:

Contraindication to VT ablation
Renal failure (CrCl < 15 mL/min)
NYHA IV or CCS IV angina
STEMI within 1 month
CABG within 3 months
PCI within 1 month
Pregnant
Life expectancy < 1 year

Go to 

Information from the National Library of Medicine
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT05708131

Layout table for location information

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19104

Contact: Pasquale Santangeli         

Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center

Athens, Greece

Contact: Konstantinos G Vlachos         

Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital

Granada, Spain

Contact: Pablo J Sánchez-Millán         

Arrhythmia Unit, University Hospital Ramón y Cajal

Madrid, Spain

Contact: Javier Moreno         

Basildon University Hospital

Basildon, United Kingdom

Contact: Neil Srinivasan, MBBS    +(44)1268 524900 ext 44100    neil.srinivasan2@nhs.net   

Royal Sussex County Hospital

Brighton, United Kingdom

Contact: John Silberbauer         

Royal Brompton & Harefield hospital

London, United Kingdom

Contact: Chen Zhong         

St Bartholomew’s Hospital

London, United Kingdom

Contact: Ross Hunter         

Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
Abbott

Layout table for investigator information

Principal Investigator:
Neil Srinvasan, MBBS
Mid and South Essex NHS FT

Go to 

Layout table for additonal information

Responsible Party:
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT05708131    

Other Study ID Numbers:
315453

First Posted:
February 1, 2023    Key Record Dates

Last Update Posted:
February 1, 2023

Last Verified:
January 2023

Layout table for additional information

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Layout table for MeSH terms

TachycardiaTachycardia, VentricularArrhythmias, CardiacHeart Diseases
Cardiovascular DiseasesCardiac Conduction System DiseasePathologic Processes

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.

February 2, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
Pharmacological Agents for Chronic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)

Research will take place at the James J. Peters VA Medical Center (JJPVAMC), Bronx, NY. There are seven visits in total, including an initial evaluation and clinical assessment session. Each visit will last roughly 5 hours or less. We plan to enroll 28 participants with spinal cord injury over a two-year period.
The study is designed as a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose, randomized crossover investigation involving four study drug visits (CPH, CD-LD, ATX, or placebo).
The same participants will partake in all four interventions in randomized order with at least 1-week washout representative of greater than 5x drug half-life; to avoid accumulative effects. To reduce potential learning effects from motor training and task-related outcome measurements, participants will partake in two motor training practice sessions prior to commencing the experiments for task familiarity.
This study will consist of electromyography (surface recordings of muscle activity), peripheral nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic brain stimulation (TMS), and transcutaneous electrical spinal cord stimulation (TSCS), targeting the hand/arm muscles.
Though it is unlikely given the single-dose nature, participants may experience side effects following drug administration. Prior to consenting, all volunteers will undergo a comprehensive pre-screening evaluation including blood tests to ensure there are no contraindications.
Please note, there is no expectation of long-term benefit from this study.

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.

February 2, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
Heat Therapy, Functional Capacity, and Vascular Health in Older Adults

Chronic whole-body heating (i.e., heat therapy) has gained attention as a novel strategy to improve clinical and physiological outcomes in a number of populations. However, whole-body heat therapy is quite uncomfortable and may require trained personnel to ensure participant safety, especially for those more at risk for heat-related illness. Moreover, the applicability and acceptability of whole-body heat therapy are questionable as equipment cost is substantial and adherence will be low if individuals are required to travel if they cannot afford in-home therapy. Home-based leg heat therapy offers an opportunity to leverage the demonstrated benefits of whole-body heat therapy while managing safety and convenience.
The hypothesis will be addressed in the following Specific Aims:
Aim 1: Determine the extent to which home-based leg heat therapy improves functional capacity in older adults. Functional capacity will be assessed before and after heat therapy or sham intervention via the 6-min walk test and the Short Physical Performance Battery.
Aim 2: Determine if home-based leg heat therapy improves vascular function and exercise hyperemia in the older adults of Aim 1. Using state-of-the-art techniques of skeletal muscle microdialysis and high-resolution duplex ultrasound, the investigators will pharmacodissect mechanisms of vascular function and exercise hyperemia before and after each intervention. The outcomes of Aim 2, while providing insight into the mechanisms whereby heat therapy improves functional capacity, should be considered independent of the outcomes of Aim 1 given that vascular health is a key independent, yet modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

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.

February 1, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
Imaging the Pathogenesis of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. 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.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05703386

Recruitment Status : **RECRUITING NOW**
First Posted : January 30, 2023
Last Update Posted : January 30, 2023

Sponsor:

Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Richard Leigh, Johns Hopkins University

Go to 

Brief Summary:
Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) can lead to vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). The hallmark of CSVD is the appearance and progression of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on MRI. The goal of this study it to recruit and follow individuals at risk for WMH progression and use serial MRI scanning to gain insights into the pathogenesis of CSVD.

Ischemic Stroke Hypertension Hyperlipidemias Diabetes

Detailed Description:
Vascular Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (VCID) which is attributed in large part to cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is prevalent in patients with a history of stroke and vascular risk factors. The hallmark of CSVD is white matter hyperintensities (WMH) seen on T2-weighted MRI. The initial amount, and rate of progression, of WMH is tied closely with the development and progression cognitive deficits. It is hypothesized that one of the early pathologic features in the normal appearing white matter (NAWM), before it progresses to WMH is disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and loss of micro-structural integrity. The purpose of this study is track the progression of WMH using multiple MRI biomarkers looking at BBB disruption (DCE, DSC, ASL), micro-structural changes (multi-shell DTI), and macrostructural changes (FLAIR, SWI, T1) to better understand the pathogenesis of CSVD. Patients with a history of a stroke, at least one vascular risk factor, and evidence of CSVD on MRI may be eligible for this study. We will follow 50 patients with 3 MRIs performed over 1.25 years

Go to 

Layout table for study information

Study Type :
Observational

Estimated Enrollment :
50 participants

Observational Model:
Cohort

Time Perspective:
Prospective

Official Title:
Imaging the Pathogenesis of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

Actual Study Start Date :
November 8, 2022

Estimated Primary Completion Date :
March 31, 2027

Estimated Study Completion Date :
March 31, 2027

Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine

Go to 

Go to 

Primary Outcome Measures :

Progression of cerebral small vessel disease [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
Conversion of normal appearing white matter to white matter hyperintensity measured on MRI using 3D FLAIR imaging.

Go to 

Information from the National Library of Medicine
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Layout table for eligibility information

Ages Eligible for Study:  
18 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)

Sexes Eligible for Study:  
All

Sampling Method:  
Non-Probability Sample

Patients who are identified as having had an ischemic stroke, have at least one vascular risk factor, have had an MRI demonstrating cerebral small vessel disease and are willing and able to come to our research facility in Baltimore for 3 MRI scans over 1.25 years.

Inclusion Criteria:

Clinical or radiographic evidence of ischemic stroke
One vascular risk factor (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes)
Evidence of cerebral small vessel disease on MRI

Exclusion Criteria:

Inability to complete 3 research MRI scans over 1.25 years

Go to 

Information from the National Library of Medicine
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT05703386

Layout table for location contacts

Contact: Pooja Patel
410-502-5355
ppate120@jhmi.edu

Layout table for location information

Kennedy Krieger Institute

Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21205

Contact: Pooja Patel    410-502-5355    ppate120@jhmi.edu   

Johns Hopkins University

Layout table for investigator information

Principal Investigator:
Richard Leigh, MD
Johns Hopkins University

Go to 

Layout table for additonal information

Responsible Party:
Richard Leigh, Associate Professor of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT05703386    

Other Study ID Numbers:
IRB00313202

First Posted:
January 30, 2023    Key Record Dates

Last Update Posted:
January 30, 2023

Last Verified:
January 2023

Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:

Plan to Share IPD:
Undecided

Layout table for additional information

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No

Keywords provided by Richard Leigh, Johns Hopkins University:

Cerebral small vessel diseaseVascular cognitive impairment and dementiaWhite matter hyperintensities
Blood-brain barrierVascular risk factorsIschemic stroke

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Layout table for MeSH terms

Cardiovascular DiseasesIschemic StrokeCerebral Small Vessel DiseasesHyperlipidemiasStrokeCerebrovascular DisordersBrain Diseases
Central Nervous System DiseasesNervous System DiseasesVascular DiseasesDyslipidemiasLipid Metabolism DisordersMetabolic Diseases

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 31, 2023Comments OffCardiology | Cardiology Clinical Trials | Cardiology Studies | ClinicalTrials.gov | Drug Trials Near Me | US National Library of Medicine
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
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
Study of VP301 in Patients With Multiple Myeloma, Lymphoma, or Solid Tumors

This study will test the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of VP301 in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, lymphoma, or solid tumors. This study will be conducted in two parts:
Dose Escalation – This part will evaluate increasing doses of VP301 to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). The first patient enrolled on the study will receive the lowest dose of VP301. Once this dose is shown to be safe, an additional patient will be enrolled at the next higher dose. Patients will continue to be enrolled into either single or multiple patient groups receiving increasing doses until the MTD or RP2D is reached.
Dose Expansion – Patients with relapsed myeloma and lymphoma will be enrolled and treated with VP301 at the MTD or RP2D.

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