Food insecurity and mental health outcomes among homeless adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review summarises and synthesises the existing literature on the relationship between food insecurity (FS) and mental health conditions among adult individuals experiencing homelessness. DESIGN: Scoping review. Papers published between 1 January 2008 and 2 November 2018, searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL, using homelessness, food security and mental health keywords. SETTING: Global evidence. PARTICIPANTS: Homeless adults aged 18 years or more. RESULTS: Nine articles (eight cross-sectional and one longitudinal) were included in the present review. FS was measured using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, the United States Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey Module, as well as single-item or constructed measures. Depression and depressive symptoms were the most common mental health conditions studied. Other mental health conditions assessed included alcohol and substance use, emotional disorders, mental health problems symptoms severity and psychiatric hospitalisations. Composite measures such as axis I and II categories and a cluster of severe mental conditions and mental health-related functioning status were also analysed. FS and mental health-related problems were considered as both exposure and outcome variables. The existing evidence suggests a potential association between FS and several mental health conditions, particularly depression, mental health symptoms severity and poor mental health status scores. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests the potential association between some mental health conditions and FS among homeless adults. However, there is a need for more longitudinal- and interventional-based studies, in order to understand the nature and directionality of the links between FS and mental health in this population group.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".