Level of street involvement and health and health services use of Calgary street youth.
Worthington, Catherine A. ; Bruce J. MacLaurin
Health issues faced by street youth in Canada are of growing
concern for public health, as homelessness and health become critical
social issues. (1) The health risks of street-involved youth are many,
and may arise from street environmental risks (including inadequate
shelter, poor diet, and violence); (2,3) and risks resulting from street
experiences, including those related to sexual activity (including
survival/obligatory sex or prostitution) such as high rates of STIs
(HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B) and high-risk pregnancy; (4-6)
substance use, such as drug overdoses, or hepatitis B, C, or HIV
infection through sharing of needles or injection drug equipment; (7,8)
and isolation and lack of social support, which may lead to mental
health problems or exacerbation of mental health issues (including
depression and suicide attempts). (4,9) While many street youth use
hospital emergency and health clinics, they typically turn to these only
when seriously injured or ill, and often cannot afford medicines.
(10-12)
A variety of definitions of street youth have been used, but most
health research in Canada focuses on youth under 25 who face some degree
of precarious housing (e.g., those "couch surfing" at
friends' homes or in hotels) or absolute homelessness (those living
outdoors, in abandoned buildings or shelters) over a given time period
and who use street services. (4,13) A more inclusive perspective defines
street-involved youth as young people under 25 who spend considerable
amounts of time on the street, participate extensively in street
lifestyle practices, and who may live or have lived independently of
parents or guardians in marginal or precarious situations. (14) This
approach acknowledges diversity among the street-involved youth
population, and includes youth who may not be accessing services as well
as youth who may be street-involved, but who have not lived on the
street. This approach also considers factors that lead to street
involvement, which typically include family conflict, violence or
maltreatment, (15,16) individual issues (such as mental health issues
and substance use), (4,17) or child welfare or educational systems
issues. (18) Within the last decade, there has been a growing
recognition in the literature that for youth, involvement with the
street is episodic, and may follow one or repeated cycles of entry,
equilibrium on the street, and extrication or disengagement. (15,19)
Studies have thus recently begun to examine health risks, health
outcomes, and street services use according to the levels and types of
street involvement. (10,20) The objective of this study was to describe
health risks, outcomes and health services use of Calgary
street-involved youth and investigate differences in these by their
level of street involvement in order to inform health and street
services delivery.
METHODS
This study used a community-based research approach, and included a
self-administered survey of street-involved youth. Community members
(including 3 street-involved youth and representatives of 14 agencies)
acted as research team members, and contributed to the development of
study questions and survey and interview instruments, survey collection,
and data interpretation. Community-based research promotes study
community relevance and direct uptake of study results by agencies, and
provides research training and skills-building for community members.
(21) The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint
Faculties Research Ethics Board.
Study sample
Nonprobability, purposive sampling was used to achieve variation in
the 371 survey participants in terms of gender, ethnic group, level and
type of street involvement, and geographic location within the city.
Research-trained youth outreach workers recruited survey participants
from sites across the city, including indoor and outdoor gathering
places, public transportation stations, agency locations and youth
shelters. Targeted street-involved youth were 24 or younger, although
youth up to age 29 were not excluded if they clearly identified and
engaged with youth street practices. Study participants were required to
be English speaking, and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at
the time of participation.
Survey instrument and data collection
The self-administered survey instrument (70 questions in booklet
format) was designed to capture demographic characteristics; life
experiences; street experiences; perceived physical, mental and
emotional health; social, employment and educational activities; coping
strategies and social support; future goals; and use of and opinions
about health and street services. Survey items were based on questions
used in previous surveys of street youth in Canada, (22-24) and were
modified to fit the local context and street language. The brief social
support scale constructed for this study used 7 items from the MOS-SSS
deemed most relevant for street-involved youth, and drew from tangible,
affection, positive social interaction and emotional/informational
subscales of the MOS-SSS. (25) (Internal consistency for this scale
among this sample was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93).) The survey
instrument was pretested with 24 street-involved youth.
In all, 371 surveys were collected by trained outreach workers over
a seven-month period (June 2005-January 2006). Participating youth were
offered a Calgary street survival guide, condom and lubricant packet,
refreshments, and a choice of transit tickets/coffee shop gift
certificates.
Data entry and statistical analysis
Sixteen surveys were excluded due to inadequate completion (less
than 50% complete), for a final sample of 355 surveys. Descriptive
statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics, and three
categories of street involvement were created for analyses: youth who
indicated they were currently living on the street (of whom 48% reported
they spent the last night in a shelter, 15% outside, 12% couch
surfing/at a friend's house, 6% camping, 5% on the move; 12%
other); those who indicated they did not currently live on the street
but had lived on the street in the past (street-involved, lived on the
street in past); and those youth who indicated they spent time on the
street but had never lived on the street (street-involved, never lived
on the street). Logistic regression analyses (SPSS 16.0) were used to
estimate unadjusted and adjusted (for sex, ethnocultural group and age
group) odds ratios (OR) for each health and health service use factor by
level of street involvement. Three trans-gendered youth were excluded
from the adjusted analyses that controlled for sex, ethnocultural group
and age group. Given the cross-sectional nature of the data and sample
size, these regression results were checked for robustness by running
the logistic regression models (unadjusted and adjusted) with collapsed
levels of street involvement (two categories: currently living on the
street; not currently living on the street).
RESULTS
Survey participant characteristics, their health factors, and
health services use are detailed in Table 1. Seventy-six percent (280
respondents) had lived on the street at some point, and 182 (52%)
reported they had lived on the street in another city. Pregnancy
involvement did not differ significantly by sex (52% for females; 46%
for males), but a significantly larger percentage of females (33%) than
males (20%) reported survival/obligatory sex (i.e., sex in exchange for
food or shelter).
Health risks, health outcomes and health services use of
participating street-involved youth by level of street involvement are
displayed in Table 2. Significant and consistent health and health risk
outcomes were seen by level of street involvement in terms of reported
general and physical health, mental health, sexual health, and health
risks for both unadjusted and adjusted models. For example, youth who
had lived on the street in the past (adjusted OR 3.1), or were currently
living on the street (adjusted OR 3.2) were 3 times more likely than
youth who had never lived on the street to report attempting suicide.
The one exception was condom use (always) which did not differ
significantly among the three groups.
For health services use, results were more variable. Use of
hospitals and walk-in clinics did not differ significantly by level of
street involvement; however, there were significant differences in use
for other health services, with those currently living on the street 80%
less likely (adjusted OR 0.2) than street-involved youth who had never
lived on the street to use a physician during business hours, and 10
times more likely (adjusted OR 10.1) to use street mobile clinics. There
were significant differences from those who had never lived on the
street for both other groups (currently living on the street and lived
on the street in the past) in terms of those who did not use health
services and those who had received HIV or STI testing. For all but
self-reported health, regression results remained consistent when the
regressions were run with two levels of street involvement (currently
living on street compared with not currently living on street; results
not shown).
CONCLUSION
Survey participants showed similar characteristics to
street-involved youth surveyed in other Canadian cities in terms of
demographics (approximately two thirds male, with an over-representation
of Aboriginal youth) and similar health and health risk experiences to
other samples of North American street-involved youth--with high levels
of reported abuse or neglect, experience of street violence, childhood
mental health conditions, attempted suicide, pregnancy, involvement in
survival/obligatory sex or prostitution, drug and alcohol use, and
low/inconsistent condom use. (4,13) Our results for health services use
are also consistent with the small number of existing North American
studies, and show fairly low levels of formal health services use, with
the exception of walk-in clinics (66%) and HIV or STI testing (69%).
(10,26,27)
To our knowledge, our study is the first Canadian survey study to
examine street youth health and services use by level of street
involvement. Our results show clear differences according to level of
street involvement--with those who had not lived on the street showing
better health outcomes than those who were currently living on the
street or those who had lived on the street in the past--and are
consistent with the small body of emerging research. (20,28) Our results
for differences in health services use by level of street involvement
show some differences by level of street involvement, and this is also
consistent with existing international research. (10,27,29) Most notable
in our results was the lower likelihood that youth currently living on
the street would use a physician during regular office hours, and higher
likelihood of use of street mobile clinics, services that are targeted
to street-involved individuals.
Like most studies conducted with street youth, in addition to some
measurement error that may result from self-report data, our study faces
two key limitations. Street-involved youth are a difficult population to
access, and thus we do not claim our sample is representative of Calgary
street-involved youth. However, our sample was recruited from a wide
variety of targeted locations by street outreach workers with
considerable rapport with youth (including 11% youth who had not
accessed any street services in the past three months), and thus the
sample was more broadly based than many previous studies which
predominantly utilized agency-based samples. In addition, as our study
was cross-sectional, we present associational data, and are not claiming
that living on the street in and of itself--or itself alone--produces
poorer health outcomes and higher health risks. While clear differences
exist by level of street involvement, street involvement itself is a
product of complex, multiple risks, including family violence, mental
health/drug use issues, previous difficulties in the educational system,
and child welfare services involvement, all of which may contribute to
poor health practices and elevated risks for poor health outcomes. There
is very little longitudinal research that has examined health risks and
outcomes for street youth or homeless adults--this small body of work
suggests that the relationships between homelessness and poor health
outcomes (e.g., mental illness) and health risks (e.g., injection drug
use) is bidirectional. (30)
Given the results of this study, it is clear that youth with
different levels of street involvement may access different types of
services. Thus, public health and other service providers need to be
cognizant of their role in providing prevention, safety or stabilization
services for youth at different stages of street life. Barriers to
health services for street-involved youth are many, and include
accessibility issues, lack of medical coverage and prescription costs,
and perhaps most importantly, health care professional attitudes.
(11,12) Public health plays a critical role in providing services for
street-involved youth, but many other sectors need to be engaged as
well, including mental health and addictions, education, child welfare,
and correctional services.
Acknowledgements: This study was supported by an operating grant
from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (CBR68751) and an
establishment grant from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical
Research (AHFMR). C. Worthington is a CIHR New Investigator and an AHFMR
Population Health Investigator. We thank the many youth who participated
in the study, Calgary youth and health agency staff on the research team
for their contributions to the study, and the street outreach workers
who acted as research assistants. Particular thanks go to the Project
Coordinator, Dawn Dittmann, and to AIDS Calgary Awareness Association,
the lead community agency partner on this study. Thanks also go to Nedra
Huffey, Eric Berndt, and San Patten, all of whom acted as research
partners over the course of the study, and to M.C. Auld who reviewed the
statistical analyses.
Received: February 17, 2009
Accepted: June 24, 2009
REFERENCES
(1.) Turnbull J, Muckle W, Masters C. Homelessness and health. CMAJ
2007;177(9):1065-66.
(2.) Dachner N, Tarasuk V. Homeless "squeegee kids": Food
insecurity and daily survival. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:1039-49.
(3.) Gaetz S. Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social
exclusion, and criminal victimization. Can J Criminol Criminal Justice
2004;46(4):423-55.
(4.) Boivin JF, Roy E, Haley N, Galbaud du Fort G. The health of
street youth: A Canadian perspective. Can J Public Health
2005;96(6):432-37.
(5.) Public Health Agency of Canada. Sexually Transmitted
Infections in Canadian Street Youth: Findings from Enhanced Surveillance
of Canadian Street Youth, 1999-2003. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Health,
HP5-14/2006, 2006.
(6.) Weber AE, Boivin JF, Blais L, Haley N, Roy E. HIV risk profile
and prostitution among female street youths. J Urban Health
2002;79(4):525-35.
(7.) Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Street Youth and
Substance Use: Findings from Enhanced Surveillance of Canadian Street
Youth, 1999-2003. Ottawa: Minister of Health, HP5-23/2007, 2007.
(8.) Roy E, Boudreau JF, Leclerc P, Boivin JF, Godin G. Trends in
injection drug use behaviors over 10 years among street youth. Drug
Alcohol Dependence 2007;89:170-75.
(9.) Kidd SA. Factors precipitating suicidality among homeless
youth: A quantitative follow-up. Youth & Society 2006;37(4):393-422.
(10.) Carlson JL, Sugano E, Millstein SG, Auerswald CL. Service
utilization and the life cycle of youth homelessness. J Adolesc Health
2006;38:624-27.
(11.) Ensign J, Bell MA. Illness experiences of homeless youth.
Qual Health Res 2004;14(1):1239-54.
(12.) Geber GM. Barriers to health care for street youth. J Adolesc
Health 1997;21:287-90.
(13.) Public Health Agency of Canada. Street Youth in Canada:
Findings from Enhanced Surveillance of Canadian Street Youth, 1999-2003.
Ottawa: Minister of Health, HP5-15/2006, 2006.
(14.) Brannigan A, Caputo T. Studying Runaways and Street Youth in
Canada: Conceptual and Research Design Issues. Ottawa: Ministry of
Supply and Services, 1993.
(15.) Adlaf EM, Zhanowicz YM. A cluster-analytic study of substance
problems and mental health among street youths. Am J Drug & Alcohol
Abuse 1999;25(4):639-60.
(16.) Hyde J. From home to street: Understanding young
people's transitions into homelessness. J Adolescence
2005;28:171-83.
(17.) Martijn C, Sharpe L. Pathways to youth homelessness. Soc Sci
Med 2006;62:1-12.
(18.) Thompson SJ, Zittel-Palamara KM, Maccio EM. Runaway youth
utilizing crisis shelter services: Predictors of presenting problems.
Child & Youth Care Forum 2004;33(6):387-404.
(19.) Auerswald CL, Eyre SL. Youth homelessness in San Francisco: A
life cycle approach. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:1497-512.
(20.) Greene JM, Ennett ST, Ringwalt CL. Substance use among
runaway and homeless youth in three national samples. Am J Public Health
1997;87(2):229-36.
(21.) Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of
community based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve
public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1998;19:173-202.
(22.) Brannigan A, Caputo T. Runaways and Street Youth in Canada in
the 1990's, Revised Final Report. Calgary, AB: Brannigan and
Caputo, Social Science Consulting, June 1992.
(23.) Clarke M, Cooper M. Homeless Youth: Falling Between the
Cracks. Calgary: Youth Alternative Housing Committee, August 2000.
(24.) Janus MD, McCormack A, Burgess AW, Hartman C. Adolescent
Runaways: Causes and Consequences. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books, 1987.
(25.) Sherbourne C, Stewart A. The MOS social support survey. Soc
Sci Med 1991;32(6):705-14.
(26.) De Rosa CJ, Montgomery SB, Hyde J, Iverson E, Kipke M. HIV
risk behavior and HIV testing: A comparison of rates and associated
factors among homeless and runaway adolescents in two cities. AIDS
Education and Prevention 2001;13(2):131-48.
(27.) Klein JD, Woods AH, Wildson KM, Prospero M, Greene JM,
Ringwalt CL. Homeless and runaway youths' access to health care. J
Adolesc Health 2000;27:331-39.
(28.) Milburn NG, Stein JA, Rice E, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Mallett S,
Rosenthal D, et al. AIDS risk behaviors among American and Australian
homeless youth. J Soc Issues 2007;63(3):543-65.
(29.) Ensign J, Santelli J. Shelter-based homeless youth. Health
and access to care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;151(8):817-23.
(30.) Wong YLI, Piliavin I. Stressors, resources, and distress
among homeless persons: A longitudinal analysis. Soc Sci Med
2001;52(7):1029-42.
Catherine A. Worthington, MSc, PhD, RSW, Bruce J. MacLaurin, MSW
Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
Correspondence and reprint requests: Catherine Worthington, Faculty
of Social Work, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW,
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Tel: 403-220-8507, Fax: 403-282-7269, E-mail:
[email protected]
Table 1. Self-reported Characteristics of 355 Calgary Street
Youth Who Completed the "Youth, Health and the
Street" Survey
Characteristic Number Percent of
of Youth Survey
Respondents *
Personal Characteristics
Sex
Male 214 61%
Female 137 39%
Transgender 3 1%
Age
[less than or equal to] 19 182 51%
20-24 151 43%
[greater than or equal to] 25 21 6%
Ethnic group
White/European background 216 61%
Aboriginal/Metis 90 25%
Other (Black, Asian, mixed) 42 12%
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never lived
on street 71 20%
Street-involved, lived on
street in past 117 33%
Currently living on the street 163 46%
Reason began spending time on
street ([dagger])
Friends were on the street 131 37%
Buy or use drugs or alcohol 115 32%
Somewhere to go when skipping/
not in school 63 18%
Travel 57 16%
Earn money 70 20%
Parent(s)/guardian(s) asked
me to leave 116 33%
Parent(s)/guardian(s) too strict 43 12%
Ever experienced abuse or neglect 243 69%
Lived on the street in another city 182 52%
Health Factors
General and Physical Health
Self-reported health
Excellent 65 18%
Very good 95 27%
Good 112 32%
Fair 62 18%
Poor 21 6%
Diagnosed childhood physical
condition 86 24%
Experienced street violence 254 72%
Mental Health
Attempted suicide 132 37%
Diagnosed childhood mental
health condition 118 33%
Social support (0-28)
([double dagger]) mean 16.6 (sd 7.9)
Sexual Health
Pregnancy (been pregnant/caused
pregnancy) 162 46%
Engaged in survival/obligatory
sex 86 24%
Asked to be involved in
prostitution 70 20%
Health Risks
Always use condoms ([section]) 83 25%
Drug or alcohol use in last
two weeks 329 93%
Ever injected drugs 73 21%
Health Services Use
Do not use medical services 59 17%
Hospital 82 23%
Walk-in clinics 223 66%
Doctor during business hours 67 19%
Street mobile clinic (bus/van) 45 13%
HIV or STI test (ever) 245 69%
* percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding and item
non-response
([dagger]) responses not mutually exclusive
([double dagger]) scale created by summing responses on 7 items
from the MOS-SSS (25) (scores 0 [none of the time]--4 [all of
the time]): "How often is each of the following available from
anyone if you need it: ... someone to listen to you when you
need to talk, ...someone to give you advice in a crisis, ...
someone who shows you love and affection, ... someone to have a
good time with, ...someone to take you to the doctor if you need
it, ... someone you can talk to about your problems, ...
someone who makes you feel wanted"
([section]) Excludes 23 youth (7%) who indicated they had
never had sex (vaginal/anal intercourse)
Table 2. Association of Street Involvement and Health
Factors among 355 Calgary Street Youth in Logistic
Regression Analyses *
General and Physical Health
Self-reported Health
Fair or Poor ([dagger])
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (reference) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 1.3 (0.6-2.9) 1.1 (0.5-2.5)
Currently living on
the street 1.9 (0.9-3.9) 2.3 (1.1-5.0)
Mental Health
Attempted Suicide
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 3.6 (1.8-7.2) 3.2 (1.6-6.6)
Currently living on
the street 2.5 (1.3-4.9) 3.1 (1.5-6.2)
Sexual Health
Been Pregnant/
Caused Pregnancy
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 3.4 (1.7-6.7) 3.5 (1.7-7.1)
Currently living on
the street 4.9 (2.5-9.4) 4.8 (2.4-9.7)
Health Risks
Always Use
Condoms
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 0.6 (0.3-1.2) 0.6 (0.3-1.2)
Currently living on
the street 0.6 (0.3-1.1) 0.6 (0.3-1.3)
Health Services Use
Do Not Use
Medical Services
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 4.8 (1.4-16.8) 5.5 (1.6-19.4)
Currently living on
the street 6.1 (1.8-20.6) 4.8 (1.4-16.6)
Walk-In Clinics
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 0.7 (0.4-1.4) 0.7 (0.3-1.3)
Currently living on
the street 0.8 (0.4-1.5) 0.7 (0.4-1.4)
General and Physical Health
Diagnosed Childhood
Physical Condition
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 2.6 (1.2-6.0) 2.5 (1.1-5.8)
Currently living on
the street 2.2 (1.0-4.8) 2.8 (1.2-6.5)
Mental Health
Diagnosed Childhood
Mental Condition
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 3.3 (1.6-7.1) 3.3 (1.5-7.1)
Currently living on
the street 2.2 (1.1-4.5) 2.8 (1.3-6.1)
Sexual Health
Survival/Obligatory
Sex
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 6.3 (2.3-16.9) 6.1 (2.2-17.0)
Currently living on
the street 4.9 (1.9-13.1) 5.3 (1.9-14.9)
Health Risks
Drugs/Alcohol Use
Past 2 Weeks
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 2.0 (0.7-5.6) 1.9 (0.7-5.3)
Currently living on
the street 12.2 (2.6-58.1) 7.9 (1.6-39.2)
Health Services Use
Hospital
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 1.7 (0.8-3.3) 1.9 (0.9-4.0)
Currently living on
the street 0.8 (0.4-1.5) 0.9 (0.4-1.8)
Use Street Mobile Clinic
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 2.8 (0.6-13.3) 2.7 (0.6-13.2)
Currently living on
the street 9.0 (2.1-38.5) 10.1 (2.3-45.0)
General and Physical Health
Experienced Street
Violence
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 6.1 (3.0-12.2) 7.5 (3.6-15.9)
Currently living on
the street 6.5 (3.4-12.6) 5.0 (2.5-9.9)
Mental Health
Low Social Support ([section])
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 1.4 (0.7-2.6) 1.4 (0.7-2.7)
Currently living on
the street 2.7 (1.5-5.2) 2.8 (1.4-5.6)
Sexual Health
Asked to Be Involved
in Prostitution
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 4.5 (1.6-12.4) 4.7 (1.6-14.0)
Currently living on
the street 4.1 (1.5-11.1) 6.7 (2.2-20.4)
Health Risks
Ever Injected
Drugs
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 4.7 (1.4-16.6) 4.7 (1.3-16.6)
Currently living on
the street 10.0 (3.0-33.3) 8.7 (2.5-29.8)
Health Services Use
Doctor during
Regular Business Hours
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 0.6 (0.3-1.1) 0.5 (0.3-1.1)
Currently living on
the street 0.2 (0.1-0.4) 0.2 (0.1-0.4)
Ever had HIV/STI Test
Crude OR Adjusted OR
(95% CI) ([double
dagger])
(95% CI)
Level of street involvement
Street-involved, never
lived on the street 1.0 (ref) 1.0 (ref)
Street-involved, lived on
the street in past 2.3 (1.2-4.3) 2.1 (1.1-4.1)
Currently living on
the street 4.0 (2.1-7.5) 3.0 (1.5-5.9)
* All data are self-report; sample size for each model will
vary by item non-response
([dagger]) Reference category: good/very good/excellent
self-reported health
([double dagger]) Adjusted for age (19 or younger, 20-24, 25
or older), gender (male/female: 3 transgendered youth excluded
due to small cell size), and ethnocultural group (White,
Aboriginal/Metis, Other)
([section]) Social support scale (see footnote Table 1)
dichotomized: low--score 21 or under; high--22-28