MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191084821 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.722485

The Impact of Financial Incentives on Service Engagement Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness and Mental Illness: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

2021· article· en· W3191084821 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nadine Reid, Rosane Nisenbaum, Stephen W. Hwang, Anna Durbin, Nicole Kozloff, Ri Wang, Vicky Stergiopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMental healthIncentiveMedicineSupportive housingMental illnessFocus groupPopulationPsychologyPsychiatryNursingEnvironmental healthBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: People experiencing homelessness and mental illness have poorer service engagement and health-related outcomes compared to the general population. Financial incentives have been associated with increased service engagement, but evidence of effectiveness is limited. This protocol evaluates the acceptability and impact of financial incentives on service engagement among adults experiencing homelessness and mental illness in Toronto, Canada. Methods: This study protocol uses a pragmatic field trial design and mixed methods ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03770221). Study participants were recruited from a brief multidisciplinary case management program for adults experiencing homelessness and mental illness following hospital discharge, and were randomly assigned to usual care or a financial incentives arm offering $20 for each week they attended meetings with a program provider. The primary outcome of effectiveness is service engagement, measured by the count of participant-provider health-care contacts over the 6-month period post-randomization. Secondary health, health service use, quality of life, and housing outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential modeling including Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations. A subset of study participants and other key informants participated in interviews, and program staff in focus groups, to explore experiences with and perspectives regarding financial incentives. Qualitative data will be rigorously coded and thematically analyzed. Conclusions: Findings from this study will contribute high quality evidence to an underdeveloped literature base on the effectiveness and acceptability of financial incentives to improve service engagement and health-related outcomes among adults experiencing homelessness and mental illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207