Food insufficiency, housing and health-related quality of life: results from the Positive Spaces, Healthy Places study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of people living with HIV who are homeless or unstably housed show a high prevalence of food insufficiency (>50%) and associated poor health outcomes; however, most evidence is in the form of cross-sectional studies. To better understand this issue, we conducted a longitudinal study to examine the impact of food insufficiency and housing instability on overall physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among people living with HIV in Ontario. Six hundred and two adults living with HIV were enrolled in the Positive Spaces, Healthy Places study and followed from 2006 to 2009. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used, and generalized linear mixed-effects models constructed to examine longitudinal associations between food insufficiency, housing instability and physical and mental HRQoL. At baseline, 57% of participants were classified as food insufficient. After adjusting for potential confounders, longitudinal analyses revealed a significant, negative association between food insufficiency and physical and mental HRQoL outcomes, respectively [effect size (ES) with 95% confidence interval (CI): (ES = -2.1, CI = -3.9,-0.3); (ES = -3.5, CI = -6.1,-1.5)]. Furthermore, difficulties meeting housing costs were shown to have additional negative impacts on mental HRQoL. Food insufficiency is highly prevalent among people living with HIV in Ontario, particularly for those with unstable housing. This vulnerable group of individuals is in urgent need of changes to current housing programmes, services and policies, as well as careful consideration of their unmet nutritional needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".