Supportive housing building policies and resident psychological needs: a qualitative analysis using self-determination theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) increases housing stability and improves health outcomes among people living with HIV (PLHIV) at risk of homelessness. We conducted 24 semi-structured qualitative interviews with PLHIV at risk of homelessness living in a PSH building in Vancouver, Canada, with the aim of understanding how PSH building policies impact residents’ health. Interviews were analyzed using self-determination theory and Housing First principles. The housing provider prioritized residents’ physical safety, while participants often prioritized other needs, such as autonomy and relatedness. While building policies improved some participants’ perceived safety or autonomy, these policies simultaneously interfered with other participants’ efforts to meet alternative needs. In contrast, supportive strategies, such as the autonomy-supportive models of Housing First initiatives, appear more effective at meeting needs, with fewer unintended consequences. A shift towards autonomy-supportive housing environments for persons with complex psychosocial needs at risk of homelessness is needed, as is the deliberate alignment of resident population, tenant intake, building structure, and program model.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".