Food security among individuals experiencing homelessness and mental illness in the At Home/Chez Soi Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. The At Home/Chez Soi study provides a unique opportunity to first examine baseline levels of food security among homeless individuals with mental illness and second to evaluate the effect of a Housing First (HF) intervention on food security in this population. DESIGN: At Home/Chez Soi was a 2-year randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of HF compared with usual care among homeless adults with mental illness, stratified by level of need for mental health services (high or moderate). Logistic regressions tested baseline associations between food security (US Food Security Survey Module), study site, sociodemographic variables, duration of homelessness, alcohol/substance use, physical health and service utilization. Negative binomial regression determined the impact of the HF intervention on achieving levels of high or marginal food security over an 18-month follow-up period (6 to 24 months). SETTING: Community settings at five Canadian sites (Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver). SUBJECTS: Homeless adults with mental illness (n 2148). RESULTS: Approximately 41 % of our sample reported high or marginal food security at baseline, but this figure varied with gender, age, mental health issues and substance use problems. High need participants who received HF were more likely to achieve marginal or high food security than those receiving usual care, but only at the Toronto and Moncton sites. CONCLUSIONS: Our large multi-site study demonstrated low levels of food security among homeless experiencing mental illness. HF showed promise for improving food security among participants with high levels of need for mental health services, with notable site differences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".