Relevance of a subjective quality of life questionnaire for long-term homeless persons with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of programs are addressing the specific needs of homeless people with schizophrenia in terms of access to housing, healthcare, basic human rights and other domains. Although quality of life scales are being used to evaluate such programs, few instruments have been validated for people with schizophrenia and none for people with schizophrenia who experience major social problems such as homelessness. The aim of the present study was to validate the French version of the S-QoL a self-administered, subjective quality of life questionnaire specific to schizophrenia for people with schizophrenia who are homeless. METHODS: In a two-step process, the S-QoL was first administered to two independent convenience samples of long-term homeless people with schizophrenia in Marseille, France. The objective of the first step was to analyse the psychometric properties of the S-QoL. The objective of the second step was to examine, through qualitative interviews with members of the population in question, the relevance and acceptability of the principle quality of life indicators used in the S-QoL instrument. RESULTS: Although the psychometric characteristics of the S-QoL were found to be globally satisfactory, from the point of view of the people being interviewed, acceptability was poor. Respondents frequently interrupted participation complaining that questionnaire items did not take into account the specific context of life on the streets. CONCLUSIONS: Less intrusive questions, more readily understandable vocabulary and greater relevance to subjects' living conditions are needed to improve the S-QoL questionnaire for this population. A modular questionnaire with context specific sections or specific quality of life instruments for socially excluded populations may well be the way forward.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".