Trialing the feasibility of a critical time intervention for youth transitioning out of homelessness.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known regarding the specific types of service models and collaborations that are necessary to support diverse populations of youth in transition out of homelessness. Transitional supports addressing the complex needs of this population are needed to stabilize the array of housing arrangements that youth access. This study was a pilot randomized controlled trial of one such critical time intervention, called the Housing Outreach Program-Collaboration (HOP-C). HOP-C is a multicomponent, multidisciplinary intervention that provides 6 months of mental health and peer support, along with transitional case management to youth who have transitioned into some form of stable housing out of homelessness. In this trial, 65 youth were randomized to receive HOP-C plus treatment as usual or transitional case management plus treatment as usual. Outcome assessments were completed by 30 treatment and 28 control participants. The findings suggest that this intervention is feasible with mental health, employment or education, and housing metrics favoring HOP-C with odds ratios ranging from 2.28 to 3.18 and better subjective housing stability. Other indicators showed less change. HOP-C appears feasible and should be tested in a fully powered trial, providing the intervention for a duration longer than 6 months. Overall, these data suggest the potential benefit in fostering city-level, multidisciplinary teams sourced from several organizations to support youth transitioning out of homelessness. Pragmatic trial method considerations for this population are also addressed as are the ethical considerations pertinent to engaging highly marginalized youth in clinical trials. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".