Why Do Homeless People Use a Mobile Health Unit in a Country With Universal Health Care?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile health units (MHUs) are an important source of health care for the uninsured; however, it is unclear what role these units play in Canada, where a universal health insurance system exists. The purpose of this study was to understand why individuals who live in a country with universal health insurance seek care at an MHU and to determine whether MHUs are used in addition to or in place of the client's usual source of care. This study investigated the use of the Rotary Club of Toronto Health Bus among 150 homeless and marginally housed adults in Toronto, Ontario, over a 3-month period. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, current and lifetime homelessness, health care use, and reasons for using the Health Bus. The majority of participants (94.6%) had a regular health care source, primarily doctor's offices (41.6%) and community health centers (16.1%); 18 (12.1%) stated that the Health Bus was their usual source of care. Participants were frequent users of the Health Bus, reporting a median of 7.0 visits (interquartile range, 3.5-12.0 visits) in the past 3 months. Most clients (86.0%) reported using the Health Bus to obtain basic supplies (eg, vitamins, socks); health problems were cited as reasons for using the Health Bus for 55 (36.7%) participants. The findings suggest that in a country with universal health insurance, MHUs supplement other sources of health care, providing essential supplies and offering important outreach services to a high-needs 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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 it