Trial Outcomes & Findings for Transitioning Youth Out of Homelessness 2.5 (TYOH 2.5) (NCT NCT06425458)
NCT ID: NCT06425458
Last Updated: 2025-09-15
Results Overview
Quantitative measures consisting of recruitment/enrolment/completion metrics will be utilized. The recruitment rate will be estimated as the proportion of contacted individuals who express interest in participating in the study (T0). The enrolment rate will be calculated as the proportion of recruited individuals who are eligible and consent to participate in the study (T0). Participants were considered to have completed the study if they attended the final program session and completed final data collection (T2).
Recruitment status
COMPLETED
Study phase
NA
Target enrollment
25 participants
Primary outcome timeframe
Assessed at T0 (pre-intervention), T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).
Results posted on
2025-09-15
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Leadership Program
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
25
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
18
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
7
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Leadership Program
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Removed by study team
|
2
|
|
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
|
5
|
Baseline Characteristics
This question was only asked of the participants who were employed in the past month (n = 6).
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=25 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Age, Customized
Age · 16-18 years
|
6 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Age · 19-21 years
|
10 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Age · 22-24 years
|
9 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Gender · Boy/Man
|
7 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Gender · Girl/Woman
|
16 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Gender · Non-binary
|
2 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · White
|
7 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · Black
|
5 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · Mixed
|
8 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · Other
|
5 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Sexual Orientation
Queer/gay/lesbian/bisexual/pansexual/questioning
|
9 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Sexual Orientation
Straight/heterosexual
|
15 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Sexual Orientation
Did not specify
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Immigration Status
Canadian Citizen
|
19 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Immigration Status
Permanent Resident
|
5 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Immigration Status
Refugee
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Child Welfare Involvement
Yes
|
16 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Child Welfare Involvement
No
|
9 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age First Homeless
Before the age of 10
|
2 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age First Homeless
10-12 years of age
|
0 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age First Homeless
13-15 years of age
|
7 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age First Homeless
16-18 years of age
|
10 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age First Homeless
19-21 years of age
|
6 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Age First Homeless
22-25 years of age
|
0 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Attempts to Live on Own After Being Homeless
1-2
|
12 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Attempts to Live on Own After Being Homeless
3-4
|
11 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Attempts to Live on Own After Being Homeless
5 or more
|
2 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Highest Education Level
Less than grade 9
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Highest Education Level
Some high school
|
11 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Highest Education Level
Completed high school
|
7 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Highest Education Level
Some post-secondary (e.g., college, university, or vocational training after high school)
|
5 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Highest Education Level
Completed post-secondary
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Regular Contact with Adult Relative
Yes
|
13 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Regular Contact with Adult Relative
No
|
12 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Adult that Provides Guidance and Encouragement
Yes
|
17 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Adult that Provides Guidance and Encouragement
No
|
8 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Receiving Social Assistance
Yes
|
24 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Receiving Social Assistance
No
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Access Food Assistance Programs
Yes
|
13 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Access Food Assistance Programs
No
|
12 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Attending School (Secondary or Post-Secondary)
Yes
|
11 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Attending School (Secondary or Post-Secondary)
No
|
13 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Attending School (Secondary or Post-Secondary)
Did not specify
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Employed in Past Month
Yes
|
6 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Employed in Past Month
No
|
18 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Employed in Past Month
Did not specify
|
1 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Hours Worked Per Week in Past Month
1-20
|
3 Participants
n=6 Participants • This question was only asked of the participants who were employed in the past month (n = 6).
|
|
Hours Worked Per Week in Past Month
21-40
|
3 Participants
n=6 Participants • This question was only asked of the participants who were employed in the past month (n = 6).
|
|
Hours Worked Per Week in Past Month
Over 40
|
0 Participants
n=6 Participants • This question was only asked of the participants who were employed in the past month (n = 6).
|
|
Job is Meaningful
Yes
|
4 Participants
n=6 Participants • This question was only asked of the participants who were employed in the past month (n = 6).
|
|
Job is Meaningful
No
|
2 Participants
n=6 Participants • This question was only asked of the participants who were employed in the past month (n = 6).
|
|
Participating in Training/Trades Program
Yes
|
3 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Participating in Training/Trades Program
No
|
20 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
|
Participating in Training/Trades Program
Did not specify
|
2 Participants
n=25 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed at T0 (pre-intervention), T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).Population: Analysis population includes all participants screened for study eligibility.
Quantitative measures consisting of recruitment/enrolment/completion metrics will be utilized. The recruitment rate will be estimated as the proportion of contacted individuals who express interest in participating in the study (T0). The enrolment rate will be calculated as the proportion of recruited individuals who are eligible and consent to participate in the study (T0). Participants were considered to have completed the study if they attended the final program session and completed final data collection (T2).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=35 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics)
Screened
|
35 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics)
Enrolled
|
25 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics)
Completed Study
|
18 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention).Program attendance was calculated as the percentage of total possible leadership program sessions attended (maximum 8 sessions).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=25 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Attendance)
|
75.5 Percent of sessions attended
Standard Deviation 20.9
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention).Population: Analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
This 4-item anonymous questionnaire was developed for this study to collect information about participants' view of the leadership program, the impact of the program on them, and their view of the individuals running the program.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=18 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. · Strongly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. · Disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. · Slightly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. · Slightly agree
|
1 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. · Agree
|
8 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. · Strongly agree
|
9 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. · Strongly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. · Disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. · Slightly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. · Slightly agree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. · Agree
|
8 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. · Strongly agree
|
10 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. · Strongly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. · Disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. · Slightly disagree
|
1 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. · Slightly agree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. · Agree
|
7 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. · Strongly agree
|
10 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. · Strongly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. · Disagree
|
1 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. · Slightly disagree
|
0 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. · Slightly agree
|
2 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. · Agree
|
5 Participants
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. · Strongly agree
|
10 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention).Population: Analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
Focus group discussions (at T2) with program participants primarily centered around intervention acceptability but also explored the impact of the intervention on identity capital (e.g., sense of purpose and control) and socioeconomic inclusion (e.g., connection to broader social networks). Qualitative data analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis with a critical social theoretical lens. During analysis, focus group transcripts were coded and codes were organized in a code book, clustered into categories, and eventually synthesized into key themes and sub-themes.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=18 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Informed by Focus Groups)
Key Themes
|
3 Themes
|
|
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Informed by Focus Groups)
Sub-themes
|
7 Themes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed at T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).Population: T2 analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
The Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale (MAPS20) is a 20-item validated self-report measure that explores domains related to identity capital. The MAPS20 contains the following sub-scales: Self-Esteem; Purpose in Life; Internal Locus of Control; Self-Efficacy/Ego Strength. Each subscale has a score range of 5-30, with higher scores indicating greater identity capital.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=25 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Self-Esteem (T1)
|
20.3 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 4.0
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Purpose in Life (T1)
|
18.8 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 4.8
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Locus of Control (T1)
|
20.8 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 2.9
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Self-Efficacy (T1)
|
20.6 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 4.0
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Self-Esteem (T2)
|
21.9 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 4.4
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Purpose in Life (T2)
|
20.2 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 5.4
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Locus of Control (T2)
|
20.6 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 3.8
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
Self-Efficacy (T2)
|
19.0 Score on a Scale
Standard Deviation 4.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed at T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).Population: T2 analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
The composite knowledge assessment scale is 16-item self-report measure that was developed for this study and explores concepts from the program curriculum, such as: mindfulness; core values; purpose; goal setting; growth mindset; identity; and courage. Reported values represent the percentage of participants who answered the question correctly (i.e., agreeing with a correct statement or disagreeing with an incorrect statement).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Leadership Program
n=25 Participants
Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy).
|
|---|---|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am confident about my ability to be in the driver's seat in my "car of life." (T1)
|
76.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I can name at least one strategy that I consistently use to help me accomplish my daily tasks. (T1)
|
88.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
It is more important to focus on what you want to achieve than who you wish to become. (T1)
|
40.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I have a good understanding of how my brain becomes anxious. (T1)
|
87.5 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am confident in my purpose and why it is important in my life. (T1)
|
80.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
People who believe they are worthy of love/belonging have an easier time showing vulnerability. (T1)
|
100.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am not very confident about knowing how to get my "wise mind" in control. (T1)
|
52.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I have a good understanding of how to create an environment that helps me achieve my goals. (T1)
|
84.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I have a hard time naming things around me that have contributed to my habits. (T1)
|
56.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am confident that I have the knowledge/skills to "speak back" to feelings of shame. (T1)
|
76.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I can easily name my core values. (T1)
|
84.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
When creating a new habit (e.g., exercising) it is important to stop while it still feels good. (T1)
|
41.7 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can't change very much. (T1)
|
72.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
It is more important to strive for excellence than perfection. (T1)
|
84.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
You need to connect with others before you can connect with yourself. (T1)
|
62.5 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
Interdependence is an important part of self-leadership. (T1)
|
87.5 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am confident about my ability to be in the driver's seat in my "car of life." (T2)
|
83.3 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I can name at least one strategy that I consistently use to help me accomplish my daily tasks. (T2)
|
94.4 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
It is more important to focus on what you want to achieve than who you wish to become. (T2)
|
29.4 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I have a good understanding of how my brain becomes anxious. (T2)
|
100.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am confident in my purpose and why it is important in my life. (T2)
|
94.4 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
People who believe they are worthy of love/belonging have an easier time showing vulnerability. (T2)
|
83.3 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am not very confident about knowing how to get my "wise mind" in control. (T2)
|
55.6 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I have a good understanding of how to create an environment that helps me achieve my goals. (T2)
|
88.9 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I have a hard time naming things around me that have contributed to my habits. (T2)
|
83.3 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I am confident that I have the knowledge/skills to "speak back" to feelings of shame. (T2)
|
82.4 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
I can easily name my core values. (T2)
|
100.0 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
When creating a new habit (e.g., exercising) it is important to stop while it still feels good. (T2)
|
72.2 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can't change very much. (T2)
|
32.2 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
It is more important to strive for excellence than perfection. (T2)
|
94.4 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
You need to connect with others before you can connect with yourself. (T2)
|
77.8 Percentage of participants
|
|
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
Interdependence is an important part of self-leadership. (T2)
|
88.9 Percentage of participants
|
Adverse Events
Leadership Program
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place