Exiting homelessness: Perceived changes, barriers, and facilitators among formerly homeless adults with mental disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines key themes from narrative interviews conducted with 43 homeless adults with mental disorders 18 months after random assignment to Housing First with intensive supports or to treatment as usual (no housing or supports through the study). METHOD: Coding and thematic analysis of semistructured interviews was based on 2 research questions from participants' perspectives: (a) What changes were perceived over time? (b) What factors facilitated or hindered change? RESULTS: The majority of participants assigned to Housing First reported positive change across multiple domains as a result of stable housing; whereas the majority of treatment as usual participants reported negative or neutral change. Key themes included feelings of security and pride; adjusting to living alone; housing as a learning process; and developing meaningful activity. The sense of security associated with stable housing was the most influential factor that supported change. Factors that helped or hindered change clustered into 4 key themes: the type and quality of services; the cumulative effects of trauma; social ties; and concurrent substance use. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our findings provide important context to the emerging body of quantitative research on Housing First and recovery from homelessness. Participants' experiences of recovery, particularly as it relates to housing and supports, shifts in identity, and meaningful activity must be acknowledged and incorporated into the design and evaluation of public services, and policy and service reforms. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".