The Effect of Housing First on Housing Stability for People with Mental Illness and Low Intellectual Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Housing First (HF) has been linked to increased tenure in housing for homeless people with mental illness, but the effect of HF on housing stability for people with borderline or lower intellectual functioning has not been examined. This study of homeless adults with mental illness in Toronto, Ontario assessed whether the association between housing stability and HF differed for adults with borderline or lower intellectual functioning, compared to adults with above borderline intellectual functioning. METHOD: This study included 172 homeless adults with mental illness from the Toronto site of the At Home-Chez Soi randomized trial that compared receiving HF relative to treatment as usual. This sample was divided into two intellectual functioning groups: 1) adults with borderline or lower intellectual functioning (IQ < 85, 16%), and 2) adults with above borderline intellectual functioning (IQ ≥ 85, 84%). We compared these groups by modelling the percentage of days stably housed using a linear multivariable generalized estimating equation and included interaction between treatment and intellectual functioning. An interaction between treatment and time was also included. RESULTS: There were no overall differences in housing stability for individuals with borderline or lower intellectual functioning compared to people with higher than borderline intellectual functioning in either the HF or the treatment as usual groups. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate that for homeless adults with mental illness, borderline or lower intellectual functioning did not significantly affect housing stability. This accentuates the need for more research and potentially wider consideration of their inclusion in housing interventions, such as HF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".