Life Changes Among Homeless Persons With Mental Illness: A Longitudinal Study of Housing First and Usual Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the life changes of homeless people with mental illness participating in Housing First or treatment as usual and examined factors related to various changes. METHODS: Semistructured narrative interviews were conducted with 219 participants in five Canadian cities at baseline; 197 were interviewed again at 18 months after random assignment to Housing First (N=119) or treatment as usual (N=78). Interviews were coded across 13 life domains, and each participant was categorized as reporting positive, mixed-neutral, or negative changes. Housing First and treatment as usual participants were compared with respect to change patterns. Thematic analysis was used to examine factors related to various changes. RESULTS: The percentage of participants in Housing First reporting positive changes was more than double that for participants in treatment as usual, and treatment as usual participants were four times more likely than Housing First participants to report negative changes. Factors related to positive changes included having stable good-quality housing, increased control over substance use, positive relationships and social support, and valued social roles. Factors related to negative changes included precarious housing, negative social contacts, isolation, heavy substance use, and hopelessness. Factors related to mixed-neutral changes were similar to those for participants reporting negative changes but were less intense. CONCLUSIONS: Housing First with intensive support was related to more positive changes among homeless adults with mental illness across five Canadian cities. Those with poor housing or support, more common in treatment as usual, continued to struggle. These findings are relevant for services and social change to benefit this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".