Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Housing First for Youth Intervention for Youth Experiencing Homelessness in Canada: Protocol for a Multisite, Mixed Methods Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence at the international level suggests that the Housing First approach could improve the housing stability of young people experiencing homelessness. However, there is a dearth of literature in Canada on whether the Housing First intervention for young people experiencing homelessness can improve outcomes including housing stability, health and well-being, and access to complementary supports. Adapted from the original Housing First model, Housing First for Youth (HF4Y) was developed in Canada as a rights-based approach tailored specifically for young people aged 16 to 24 years who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. OBJECTIVE: The Making the Shift Youth Homelessness Social Innovation Lab is testing the effectiveness of the HF4Y intervention in Canada. The objective of this study is to determine whether the HF4Y model results in better participant-level outcomes than treatment-as-usual services for young people experiencing homelessness in 2 urban settings: Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario. Primary outcomes include housing stability, health and well-being, and complementary supports, and secondary outcomes include employment and educational attainment and social inclusion. METHODS: The HF4Y study used a multisite, mixed methods, randomized controlled trial research approach for data collection and analysis. Eligible participants included young people aged 16 to 24 years who were experiencing homelessness or housing precarity. The participants were randomly assigned to either the treatment-as-usual group or the housing first intervention group. Survey and interview data in Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario are being collected at multiple time points (3-6 months) over 4 years to capture a range of outcomes. Analytic strategies for quantitative data will include mixed-effects modeling for repeated measures and logistic models. A thematic analysis will be used to analyze qualitative data based on participants' narratives and life journeys through homelessness. Furthermore, program fidelity evaluations are conducted within each HF4Y program. These evaluations assess how well the intervention aligns with the HF4Y model and identify any areas that may require adjustments or additional support. RESULTS: The HF4Y study has received human participant research ethics approval from the Office of Research Ethics at York University. Recruitment was conducted between February 2018 and March 2020. Data collection is expected to be completed at both sites by March 2024. A preliminary analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected between baseline and 24 months is underway. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot randomized controlled trial is the first to test the effectiveness of the HF4Y intervention in Canada. The findings of this study will enhance our understanding of how to effectively deliver and scale up the HF4Y intervention, with the aim of continually improving the HF4Y model to promote better outcomes for youth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN10505930; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10505930. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46690.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,048 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».