MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884781351 · doi:10.1111/hsc.12599

Health supports needed for homeless persons transitioning from hospitals

2018· review· en· W2884781351 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah L. Canham, Shelly Davidson, Karen Custodio, Celine Mauboules, Chloe Good, Andrew Wister, Harvey Bosma

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth & Social Care in the Community · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsPhoenix Technologies (Canada)Providence Health CareSimon Fraser University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsThematic analysisHealth careNursingInclusion (mineral)MedicinePsychologyQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being homeless has a negative effect on health and the health needs of individuals experiencing homelessness are complex and challenging to address. As a result of limited access to and use of primary healthcare, the main point of entry into the healthcare system for individuals experiencing homelessness is often hospitals and emergency departments. Persons experiencing homelessness are commonly discharged from hospital settings to locations that do not support recovery or access to follow-up care (e.g. shelters or the street). This can be costly to both the healthcare system and to individuals' health and quality of life. We conducted a scoping review of the literature published between 2007 and 2017 to identify the types of health supports needed for persons experiencing homelessness who are discharged from the hospital. Thirteen literature sources met inclusion criteria and thematic data analyses by two researchers resulted in the identification of six themes related to the types of health supports needed for persons experiencing homelessness who are transitioning (i.e. being discharged) from the hospital. Using a community consultation approach, the scoping review themes were validated with 23 health and shelter service providers and included in our integrated findings. Themes included: (a) a respectful and understanding approach to care, (b) housing assessments, (c) communication/coordination/navigation, (d) supports for after-care, (e) complex medical care and medication management, and (f) basic needs and transportation. These themes were found to resonate with participants of the community consultation workshop. Recommendations for trauma-informed care and patient- or client-centred care approaches are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth & Social Care in the CommunitySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207