Housing as a socio-economic determinant of health: findings of a national needs, gaps and opportunities assessment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2002-2003, a Needs, Gaps and Opportunities Assessment (NGOA) was conducted to investigate relationships between socio-economic dimensions of housing and health. Recent reviews of the literature point to a dearth of research on the socio-economic dimensions of housing and health, despite its potential for promoting health. METHODS: The NGOA sought to identify research needs and gaps, and future opportunities for research in housing, socio-economic status and health. The methods used included a literature scan, a scan of research capacity, eight regional stakeholder workshops across Canada, and an open-ended e-mail survey of stakeholders. In this paper, we report the findings of the stakeholder consultations. FINDINGS: The main finding of the NGOA was that there is a significant dearth of research on housing as a socio-economic determinant of health but enormous potential for conducting high-impact, longitudinal and quasi-experimental research in the area. Of particular interest to stakeholder participants in the NGOA were the economic aspects of housing and health; the impact of housing on health for vulnerable subgroups (e.g., Aboriginal peoples, immigrants, children, seniors); the role of socio-economically and ethnically mixed communities; and the interaction between socio-economic aspects of housing and biophysical hazards in the home. CONCLUSION: The NGOA demonstrated that there is a substantial audience eager for knowledge on housing as a socio-economic determinant of health and that such knowledge could make an immediate impact on policy decision-making and program operation. Although knowledge gaps are substantial, the NGOA clearly identifies opportunities for high-impact, longitudinal and quasi-experimental research. Recently signed federal-provincial funding agreements for housing make the findings of the NGOA timely. Moreover, the NGOA results demonstrate how research on housing as a socio-economic determinant of health could be a strategy for improving our understanding of the effects of social environments on health and for reducing health disparities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".