A case study of a Canadian homelessness intervention programme for elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to describe: (1) how the Homelessness Intervention Programme addressed the needs of elderly people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness; and (2) the factors that influenced the ability of the programme to address client needs. The programme was offered by a multi-service non-profit agency serving low-income families and individuals in an urban neighbourhood in Ontario, Canada. Using a case study approach, we conducted 10 individual interviews and three focus groups with programme clients, programme providers, other service providers and programme funders. Programme providers completed intake forms, monthly follow-up forms and exit/housing change forms for each of the 129 clients served by the programme over a 28-month period. Approximately equal proportions of clients were between 54 years old and 65 years old (47%) and over 65 years (53%). There were equal proportions of women and men. In addition to being homeless or marginally housed, clients lived with multiple and complex issues including chronic illness, mental illness and substance abuse. Through the facilitation of continuity of care, the programme was able to meet the needs of this vulnerable group of elderly people. Three types of continuity of care were facilitated: relational, informational and management continuity. The study confirmed the value of a continuous caring relationship with an identified provider and the delivery of a seamless service through coordination, integration and information sharing between different providers. Study findings also highlighted the broader systemic factors that acted as barriers to the programme and its ability to meet the needs of elderly people. These factors included limited housing options available; limited income supports; and lack of coordinated, accessible community health and support services. The central findings stress the importance of continuity of care as a guiding concept for intervention programmes for homeless and marginally housed elderly people.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".