Promoting continuity of care for homeless adults with unmet health needs: The role of brief interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting timely and continuous care for people experiencing homelessness has been a challenge in many jurisdictions, plagued by access barriers and service fragmentation. As part of a larger programme evaluation, this study used qualitative methods to examine the role of a brief interdisciplinary intervention in supporting continuity of care for this population in a large Canadian urban centre. The intervention provides time-limited case management, primary and psychiatric care, and peer accompaniment to homeless adults with unmet health needs discharged from hospital. Data were collected from 52 study participants between July 2013 and December 2014. Three focus groups were conducted with service providers and people with lived experience of homelessness, and 29 individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with service users and other key informants. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Analysis was informed by existing frameworks for continuity of care, while remaining open to additional or unexpected findings. Findings suggest that brief interdisciplinary interventions can promote continuity of care by offering low-barrier access, timely and responsive service provision, including timely connection to long-term services and supports, appropriate individualised services and effective co-ordination of services. Although brief interdisciplinary interventions were perceived to promote access, timeliness and co-ordination of care for this population with complex health and social needs, gaps in the local service delivery context can present persisting barriers to care comprehensiveness and continuity.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".