Supporting Older Homeless Persons’ Positive Relocations to Long-Term Care: Service Provider Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with supporting older homeless persons' relocations to long-term care (LTC) from the perspective of service providers. It aims to inform how to improve relocation processes for this vulnerable and growing subpopulation of older persons. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative study employed semistructured face-to-face interviews with service providers from two Health and Social Service Centres in Montreal, Quebec. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed in five stages. RESULTS: A total of eight service providers reported on their experiences supporting over 40 relocations of older homeless persons (50+) in the last year. According to participants, older homeless persons' trajectories into LTC typically included a series of neglected medical issues followed by hospitalization and eventual relocation to LTC. Systemic barriers such as limited-time for proper planning, insufficient housing options for persons with minor functional limitations, disregard for preferred geographic location, multiple moves, and staff prejudices worked together to expedite premature relocation and challenge relocation processes. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Older homeless persons appear to be at heightened risk of premature and challenging relocation processes. Expanding housing stock for persons with functional limitations, strengthening intersectoral collaborations, providing education and training to staff, and ensuring flexibility around rules and regulations in receiving LTC homes would both improve access to aging in place for this marginalized group of older persons and ensure conditions are in place to support positive relocations to LTC for those who require it.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".