Pathways to Recovery among Homeless People with Mental Illness: Is Impulsiveness Getting in the Way?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the association between impulsiveness and six dimensions of recovery among homeless people with mental illness. METHOD: The sample was composed of 418 participants of a randomized controlled trial of Housing First, a recovery-oriented program that provides immediate access to permanent housing. The reliable change index method was used to provide an estimate of the statistical and clinical significance of the change from baseline to 24 months (i.e., clinically meaningful improvement), on outcomes that pertain to recovery dimensions: psychiatric symptoms (clinical), physical health and substance use problems (physical), residential stability (functional), arrests (criminological), community integration (social), and hope and personal confidence (existential). We tested for the effect of impulsiveness, assessed with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11, on clinically meaningful improvement on each specific outcome, adjusting for age, gender and intervention assignment, as both intervention arms were included in the analysis. RESULTS: = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.68) on the existential dimension. However, changes in outcomes pertaining to physical, functional, criminological, and social dimensions were not significantly influenced by impulsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of addressing impulsiveness in the context of recovery-oriented interventions for homeless people with mental illness. Further research may be required to improve interventions that are responsive to unique needs of impulsive individuals to support clinical and existential recovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".