Outcome Trajectories among Homeless Individuals with Mental Disorders in a Multisite Randomised Controlled Trial of Housing First
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Housing First (HF) has been shown to improve housing stability, on average, for formerly homeless adults with mental illness. However, little is known about patterns of change and characteristics that predict different outcome trajectories over time. This article reports on latent trajectories of housing stability among 2140 participants (84% followed 24 months) of a multisite randomised controlled trial of HF. METHODS: Data were analyzed using generalised growth mixture modeling for the total cohort. Predictor variables were chosen based on the original program logic model and detailed reviews of other qualitative and quantitative findings. Treatment group assignment and level of need at baseline were included in the model. RESULTS: In total, 73% of HF participants and 43% of treatment-as-usual (TAU) participants were in stable housing after 24 months of follow-up. Six trajectories of housing stability were identified for each of the HF and TAU groups. Variables that distinguished different trajectories included gender, age, prior month income, Aboriginal status, total time homeless, previous hospitalizations, overall health, psychiatric symptoms, and comorbidity, while others such as education, diagnosis, and substance use problems did not. CONCLUSION: While the observed patterns and their predictors are of interest for further research and general service planning, no set of variables is yet known that can accurately predict the likelihood of particular individuals benefiting from HF programs at the outset.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".