Homeless persons' experiences of health‐ and social care: A systematic integrative review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homelessness is associated with high risks of morbidity and premature death. Many interventions aimed to improve physical and mental health exist, but do not reach the population of persons experiencing homelessness. Despite the widely reported unmet healthcare needs, more information about the barriers and facilitators that affect access to care for persons experiencing homelessness is needed. A systematic integrative review was performed to explore experiences and needs of health- and social care for persons experiencing homelessness. The following databases were searched: AMED, ASSIA, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Nursing and Allied Database, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria of empirical studies with adult persons experiencing homelessness, English language, and published 2008-2018. Fifty percent of the studies were of qualitative and quantitative design, respectively. Most studies (73%) were conducted in the United States (n=11) and Canada (n=5). The analysis resulted in three themes Unmet basic human needs, Interpersonal dimensions of access to care, and Structural and organizational aspects to meet needs. The findings highlight that persons in homelessness often must prioritize provision for basic human needs, such as finding shelter and food, over getting health- and social care. Bureaucracy and rigid opening hours, as well as discrimination and stigma, hinder these persons' access to health- and social care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it