Evaluating life in foster homes for persons with serious mental illness: Resident and caregiver perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Montreal Canada, the majority of persons with serious mental illness discharged from psychiatric hospitals were placed into foster homes. Very little updated information exists on life in foster homes, and the level of autonomy allowed in this residential setting.Aims: The purpose of the study was to elicit the foster home residents' opinions about their lives in this setting and their caregiver's perception of the level of autonomy allowed.Method: Two questionnaires were administered to 102 foster home residents and their caregivers: (1) Patient Attitude Questionnaire and (2) Hospital and Hostel Practices Profile Survey.Results: Consumers are satisfied living in this type of milieu and do not desire to change their housing. The foster home provides residents with a sense of security and well being. Foster homes rank second in terms of autonomy when compared to hospitals and hostels. Only supported apartments rank higher.Conclusion: These findings shed a new light on this type of residential milieu. Over time the structure of foster homes has evolved. This study points to the need to value the opinions of consumers and not force people to move onto other types of housing.Declaration of interest: This project was funded by Fonds de recherche en santé du Québec – Project #990679. The research was carried out at the Douglas Hospital, Montreal, Canada and Louis H Lafontaine Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".