Satisfaction with health and community services among homeless and formerly homeless individuals in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
User satisfaction is a crucial quality indicator in health service provision. Few studies have measured user satisfaction among homeless and formerly homeless individuals, despite the high prevalence of mental health disorders (MHD) in this population. The purpose of this study was to assess overall satisfaction among 455 homeless and formerly homeless individuals who were receiving health and community services, and to identify factors associated with user satisfaction. Data collection occurred between January and September 2017. Study participants were 18 years old or over, with experience of homelessness in the current or recent past. They completed a questionnaire eliciting socio-demographic information, and data on residential history, service use and satisfaction and health profiles. Multivariate linear analysis was performed on overall satisfaction with health and community services in the previous 12 months. Independent variables were organised as predisposing, enabling and needs factors based on the Gelberg-Andersen Behavioral Model. The mean satisfaction score was 4.11 (minimum: 1; maximum: 5). Variables associated with greater user satisfaction included: older age, residence in permanent housing, common MHD (e.g., depression, anxiety), having a family physician, having a case manager, strong social network, good quality of life and, marginally, male sex and having substance use disorders (SUD). By contrast, frequent users of public ambulatory health services were the most dissatisfied. User satisfaction was more strongly associated with enabling factors. Strategies for improving satisfaction include: promoting more tailored primary care programmes (including family physician) adapted to the needs of this population, better integrating primary care with specialised services including SUD integrated treatment and enhancing continuity of care through the reinforcement of case management services. Further efforts aimed at increasing access to permanent housing with supports, and eliciting more active involvement by relatives and friends may also improve user satisfaction with services, and reduce unnecessary service use.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".