Foot Conditions among Homeless Persons: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Foot problems are common among homeless persons, but are often overlooked. The objectives of this systematic review are to summarize what is known about foot conditions and associated interventions among homeless persons. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE (1966-2016), EMBASE (1947-2016), and CINAHL (1982-2016) and complemented by manual searches of reference lists. Articles that described foot conditions in homeless persons or associated interventions were included. Data were independently extracted on: general study characteristics; participants; foot assessment methods; foot conditions and associated interventions; study findings; quality score assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Of 333 articles screened, 17 articles met criteria and were included in the study. Prevalence of any foot problem ranged from 9% to 65% across study populations. Common foot-related concerns were corns and calluses, nail pathologies, and infections. Foot pathologies related to chronic diseases such as diabetes were identified. Compared to housed individuals across studies, homeless individuals were more likely to have foot problems including tinea pedis, foot pain, functional limitations with walking, and improperly-fitting shoes. DISCUSSION: Foot conditions were highly prevalent among homeless individuals with up to two thirds reporting a foot health concern, approximately one quarter of individuals visiting a health professional, and one fifth of individuals requiring further follow-up due to the severity of their condition. Homeless individuals often had inadequate foot hygiene practices and improperly-fitting shoes. These findings have service provision and public health implications, highlighting the need for evidence-based interventions to improve foot health in this population. An effective interventional approach could include optimization of foot hygiene and footwear, provision of comprehensive medical treatment, and addressing social factors that lead to increased risk of foot problems. Targeted efforts to screen for and treat foot problems could result in improved health and social outcomes for homeless individuals.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".