MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341309410 · doi:10.1177/0706743716645302

Outcome Trajectories among Homeless Individuals with Mental Disorders in a Multisite Randomised Controlled Trial of Housing First

2016· article· en· W2341309410 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carol E. Adair, David L. Streiner, Ryan Barnhart, Brianna Kopp, Scott Veldhuizen, Michelle Patterson, Tim Aubry, Jennifer A. A. Lavoie, Jitender Sareen, Stefanie Renée LeBlanc, Paula Goering

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of ManitobaSimon Fraser UniversityMental Health Commission of CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthYork UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MonctonUniversity of Calgary
FundersMental Health Commission
KeywordsHousing FirstPsychiatryMental healthPsychologyRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyMedicineGerontologyMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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