A cross-sectional study of food insecurity among homeless mentally ill adults in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A limited number of studies have shown that homeless populations are affected by higher levels of food insecurity, but little is known about food insecurity among homeless adults living with mental illness. Understanding the extent to which food insecurity affects homeless mentally ill adults is crucial to informing relevant policies, intervention and reducing related health consequences. This study is the first to address the question of what is the prevalence and potential factors associated with food insecurity among homeless adults with mental disorders. Methods A cross-sectional study design was used to analyse baseline data from participants of the Vancouver At Home Study. Participants were homeless or unstably housed adults with mental illness (n = 421) and were recruited by referral from community agencies in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to identify food insecurity correlates. Stepwise backwards elimination was employed to determine the final adjusted model. Results Of 421 participants, 64% were food insecure. Significant variables in the final adjusted model included: self-reported mental health (aOR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98); >$500 spent on substances in the previous month (aOR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.01-3.39); HIV/AIDS (aOR = 3.08; 95% CI, 1.11-8.54); and having visited a drop-in centre/meal program (aOR = 1.70, 95% CI, 1.08-2.69). Conclusions The exceptionally high prevalence of food insecurity in this sample of homeless adults living with mental illness indicates the need for consideration and intervention. Screening for the aforementioned correlates may help identify those who are food insecure. The present study supports the notion that current food provision systems to food insecure individuals are insufficient, with a better systematic response needed. Additional implications of covariates are discussed. Key messages: Food insecurity interventions are needed immediately to reduce an already high prevalence of food insecurity among homeless mentally ill adults Several correlates were identified and may be used for screening/future research
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".