Housing First for older homeless adults with mental illness: a subgroup analysis of the At Home/Chez Soi randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effect of Housing First on older (≥50 years old) and younger (18-49 years old) homeless adults with mental illness participating in At Home/Chez Soi, a 24-month multisite randomized controlled trial of Housing First. METHOD: At Home/Chez Soi, participants (n = 2148) were randomized to receive rent supplements with intensive case management or assertive community treatment, based on their need level for mental health services, or usual care in their respective communities. A subgroup analysis compared older (n = 470) and younger (n = 1678) homeless participants across baseline characteristics and 24-month outcomes including housing stability (primary outcome), generic and condition-specific quality of life, community functioning, physical and mental health status, mental health symptom severity, psychological community integration, recovery, and substance use (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: At 24 months, Housing First significantly improved the percentage of days stably housed among older (+43.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 38.4% to 49.5%) and younger homeless adults (+39.7%, 95% CI: 36.8% to 42.6%), compared with usual care, with no significant differences between age groups (difference of differences = +4.2%, 95% CI: -2.1% to 10.5%, p = 0.188). Improvements from baseline to 24 months in mental health and condition-specific quality of life were significantly greater among older homeless adults than among younger homeless adults. CONCLUSION: Housing First significantly improved housing stability among older and younger homeless adults with mental illness, resulting in superior mental health and quality of life outcomes in older homeless adults compared with younger homeless adults at 24 months. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".