The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless People in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of homeless people in Germany is increasing. Studies from multiple countries have shown that most homeless people suffer from mental illnesses that require treatment. Accurate figures on the prevalence of mental illness among the homeless in Germany can help improve care structures for this vulnerable group. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of mental illness among homeless people in Germany. RESULTS: 11 pertinent studies published from 1995 to 2013 were identified. The overall study population consisted of 1220 homeless people. The pooled prevalence of axis I disorders was 77.4%, with a 95% confidence interval [95% CI] of [71.3; 82.9]. Substance-related disorders were the most common type of disorder, with a pooled prevalence of 60.9% [53.1; 68.5]. The most common among these was alcoholism, with a prevalence of 55.4% [49.2; 61.5]. There was marked heterogeneity across studies. CONCLUSION: In Germany, the rate of mental illness requiring treatment is higher among the homeless than in the general population. The development and implementation of suitable care models for this marginalized and vulnerable group is essential if their elevated morbidity and mortality are to be reduced.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".