MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317659795 · doi:10.1177/070674371506001102

Housing First for People with Severe Mental Illness Who are Homeless: A Review of the Research and Findings from the at Home—Chez soi Demonstration Project

2015· review· en· W2317659795 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tim Aubry, Geoffrey Nelson, Sam Tsemberis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineMental healthClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of the extant research literature on Housing First (HF) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) who are homeless and to describe the findings of the recently completed At Home (AH)-Chez soi (CS) demonstration project. HF represents a paradigm shift in the delivery of community mental health services, whereby people with SMI who are homeless are supported through assertive community treatment or intensive case management to move into regular housing. METHOD: The AH-CS demonstration project entailed a randomized controlled trial conducted in 5 Canadian cities between 2009 and 2013. Mixed methods were used to examine the implementation of HF programs and participant outcomes, comparing 1158 people receiving HF to 990 people receiving standard care. RESULTS: Initial research conducted in the United States shows HF to be a promising approach, yielding superior outcomes in helping people to rapidly exit homelessness and establish stable housing. Findings from the AH-CS demonstration project reveal that HF can be successfully adapted to different contexts and for different populations without losing its fidelity. People receiving HF achieved superior housing outcomes and showed more rapid improvements in community functioning and quality of life than those receiving treatment as usual. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge translation efforts have been undertaken to disseminate the positive findings and lessons learned from the AH-CS project and to scale up the HF approach across 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations244
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207