MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941589648 · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6644-1

A mixed methods randomised control trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the journey to social inclusion – phase 2 intervention for chronically homeless adults: study protocol

2019· article· en· W2941589648 on OpenAlexaff
Shannen Vallesi, Paul Flatau, Monica Thielking, Jessica L. Mackelprang, Kathryn M. Taylor, Louise La Sala, Jude Spiers, Lisa Wood, Karen Martin, Darja Kragt, Leanne Lester, Elizabeth Whittaker, Ryan J. Courtney

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSwinburne University of TechnologyCancer Institute NSW
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsPsychological interventionPublic healthPublic housingHousing FirstRandomized controlled trialMental healthInclusion (mineral)Intervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)NursingGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatryPsychologyMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic homelessness is a problem characterised by longstanding inability to attain or maintain secure accommodation. Longitudinal research with homeless populations is challenging, and randomised controlled trials that evaluate the effectiveness of intensive, case management interventions aimed at improving housing and health-related outcomes for chronically homelessness people are scant. More research is needed to inform programmatic design and policy frameworks in this area. This study protocol details an evaluation of the Journey to Social Inclusion - Phase 2 program, an intervention designed to reduce homelessness and improve outcomes in chronically homeless adults. METHODS/DESIGN: J2SI Phase 2 is a three-year, mixed methods, multi-site, RCT that enrolled 186 participants aged 25 to 50 years between 07 January 2016 and 30 September 2016 in Melbourne. The intervention group (n = 90 recruited) receives the J2SI Phase 2 program, a trauma-informed intervention that integrates intensive case management and service coordination; transition to housing and support to sustain tenancy; and support to build social connections, obtain employment and foster independence. The comparison group (n = 96 recruited) receives standard service provision. Prior to randomisation, participants completed a baseline survey. Follow-up surveys will be completed every six months for three years (six in total). In addition to self-report data on history of homelessness and housing, physical and mental health, substance use, quality of life, social connectedness and public service utilisation, linked administrative data on participants' public services utilisation (e.g., hospitalisation, justice system) will be obtained for the three-year period pre- and post-randomisation. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews will be conducted with a randomly selected subset of participants and service providers at three time-points to explore changes in key outcome variables and to examine individual experiences with the intervention and standard service provision. An economic evaluation of the intervention and associated costs will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: Results of this trial will provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of J2SI Phase 2 compared to standard service provision. If the intervention demonstrates effectiveness in improving housing, health, quality-of-life, and other social outcomes, it may be considered for broader national and international dissemination to improve outcomes among chronically homeless adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000162415 (retrospectively registered 10-February-2016).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.009

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.425 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207