Supported housing for adults with psychiatric disabilities: How tenants confront the problem of loneliness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the experience of loneliness among people with psychiatric disabilities after moving from custodial housing, including group homes, boarding homes, and family-type residences to independent, supported apartments in the community. Qualitative research methods guided by a naturalistic/constructivist framework were used. Data collection occurred between May 2014 and July 2015 and consisted of individual semi-structured interviews with 24 tenants residing in five supported housing sites across three Canadian provinces; interviews were also conducted with a designated family member for each tenant and with their service providers. Group interviews were conducted with housing workers in the five housing sites. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, codes generated and a thematic analysis undertaken using a constructivist approach. Results showed that for most tenants living in independent apartments with support loneliness was not a serious problem or was an issue that could be overcome. Most study participants viewed supported housing as preferable to custodial housing and as a normalising experience that facilitated community integration. While housing conditions, particularly those associated with congregate housing, sometimes helped attenuate loneliness among tenants, managing loneliness was primarily contingent on the ability of individuals to develop and maintain social connections, as well as on family involvement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".