Why Do Homeless People Use a Mobile Health Unit in a Country With Universal Health Care?
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".