Service use and recovery among currently and formerly homeless adults with mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A range of health and social services exist to address the many life adversities experienced by people with mental illness. However, the effects of services on their recovery in the context of ongoing homelessness and poverty have been minimally examined. AIMS: This qualitative study sought to better understand the role of health and social services in the recovery processes of people with mental illness and histories of homelessness. Similarities and differences in the perceived impacts of services on recovery between currently and formerly homeless participants were also explored. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with 52 currently and formerly homeless people with mental illness. Informed by a recovery framework, qualitative data were analyzed using two cycles of coding. RESULTS: Services were perceived to affect recovery by (1) finding ways to cope and get by, (2) feeling less alone, (3) giving back, (4) being dehumanized or seen as someone and (5) encountering restrictions when getting help. Experiences of discrimination, fewer opportunities to give back and limited service options were heightened among participants experiencing homelessness compared to the housed group. CONCLUSION: Health and social services can promote and hinder recovery among currently and formerly homeless people with mental illness. Despite several differences between the two groups, the relationship between recovery and service use was similar for currently and formerly homeless participants, suggesting that both groups access services to address needs related to social connection, health and functioning and meaningful activities.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".