Health behaviours and mental and physical health status in older adults with a history of homelessness: a cross-sectional population-based study in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared (1) levels of engagement in lifestyle risk behaviours and (2) mental and physical health status in individuals who have previously been homeless to those of individuals who have not. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: : Participants reported whether they had ever been homeless. We used regression models to analyse associations between homelessness and (1) cigarette smoking, daily alcohol consumption and physical inactivity, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates (age, sex, ethnicity, highest level of education, marital status and household non-pension wealth) and (2) self-rated health, limiting long-standing illness, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, quality of life and loneliness, adjusting for sociodemographics and health behaviours. RESULTS: 104 participants (1.5%) reported having been homeless. Individuals who had been homeless were significantly more likely to be physically inactive (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.52), report fair/bad/very bad self-rated health (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86), have a limiting long-standing illness (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.30) and be depressed (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.05) and scored lower on measures of life satisfaction (17.34 vs 19.96, p<0.001) and quality of life (39.02 vs 41.21, p=0.013). Rates of smoking (20.2% vs 15.4%, p=0.436), daily drinking (27.6% vs 22.8%, p=0.385) and loneliness (27.1% vs 21.0%, p=0.080) were also elevated. CONCLUSIONS: Those who were once homeless have poorer mental and physical health outcomes and are more likely to be physically inactive. Interventions to improve their health and quality of life are required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".