Background. Meaningful activity participation has been identified as a key outcome of services designed to support individuals during and following homelessness. Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions for promoting this outcome. Purpose. To identify the range and effectiveness of interventions on promoting meaningful activity participation among persons with experiences of homelessness. Method. We conducted a systematic review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology following PRISMA guidelines including a critical appraisal and narrative synthesis. Findings. Of 12,343 titles and abstracts screened, we included 12 studies. The authors of the included studies primarily used standardized measures of meaningful activity engagement. Critical appraisal scores ranged from 50.0 to 77.8. The most common interventions evaluated in the included studies were psychosocial interventions ( n = 6; 50.0%), followed by case management and housing support interventions ( n = 4; 33.3%) and Housing First ( n = 2; 16.7%). While several interventions demonstrated effectiveness in promoting meaningful activity participation including psychosocial and case management interventions, Housing First, Critical Time Intervention, and a peer support intervention were found to be ineffective for promoting engagement in meaningful activity. Conclusion. Few intervention studies have been conducted that demonstrate effectiveness for promoting participation in meaningful activity for individuals during and following homelessness. Occupational therapy researchers and practitioners can build on existing evidence by developing and evaluating novel approaches by co-designing interventions in collaboration with persons with experiences of homelessness and service providers.

中文翻译：

---

无家可归者有意义的活动参与干预措施的有效性：系统评价

背景。有意义的活动参与已被确定为旨在支持无家可归期间和之后的个人的服务的关键成果。对于促进这一结果的干预措施的有效性知之甚少。目的。确定促进有无家可归者有意义的活动参与的干预措施的范围和有效性。方法。我们遵循 PRISMA 指南，使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的方法进行了系统回顾，包括批判性评估和叙述综合。发现。在筛选的 12,343 篇标题和摘要中，我们纳入了 12 项研究。纳入研究的作者主要使用有意义的活动参与的标准化衡量标准。关键评估分数范围为 50.0 至 77.8。纳入研究中评估的最常见干预措施是心理社会干预措施（n = 6；50.0%），其次是病例管理和住房支持干预措施（n = 4；33.3%）和住房优先（n = 2；16.7%）。虽然一些干预措施显示出在促进有意义的活动参与方面的有效性，包括心理社会和案例管理干预措施，但住房优先、关键时间干预和同伴支持干预措施被发现对于促进有意义的活动参与无效。结论。很少有干预研究能够证明在无家可归期间和之后促进个人参与有意义的活动的有效性。职业治疗研究人员和从业人员可以在现有证据的基础上，与有无家可归经历的人和服务提供者合作，共同设计干预措施，开发和评估新方法。