Costs of services for homeless people with mental illness in 5 Canadian cities: a large prospective follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence on the costs of homelessness in Canada is available. We estimated the average annual costs, in total and by cost category, that homeless people with mental illness engender from the perspective of society. We also identified individual characteristics associated with higher costs. METHODS: As part of the At Home/Chez Soi trial of Housing First for homeless people with mental illness, 990 participants were assigned to the usual-treatment (control) group in 5 Canadian cities (Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal and Moncton) between October 2009 and June 2011. They were followed for up to 2 years. Questionnaires ascertained service use and income, and city-specific unit costs were estimated. We adjusted costs for site differences in sample characteristics. We used generalized linear models to identify individual-level characteristics associated with higher costs. RESULTS: Usable data were available for 937 participants (94.6%). Average annual costs (excluding medications) per person in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal and Moncton were $53 144 (95% confidence interval [CI] $46 297-$60 095), $45 565 (95% CI $41 039-$50 412), $58 972 (95% CI $52 237-$66 085), $56 406 (95% CI $50 654-$62 456) and $29 610 (95% CI $24 995-$34 480), respectively. Net costs ranged from $15 530 to $341 535. Distributions of costs across categories varied significantly across cities. Lower functioning and a history of psychiatric hospital stays were the most important predictors of higher costs. INTERPRETATION: Homeless people with mental illness generate very high costs for society. Programs are needed to reorient this spending toward more effectively preventing homelessness and toward meeting the health, housing and social service needs of homeless people.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".