MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212766376 · doi:10.1186/s13047-022-00518-7

Responding to foot health needs of people experiencing homelessness: the role of a publicly funded community‐based podiatry service

2022· article· en· W4212766376 on OpenAlex
Robyn Mullins, Nicole J. Marshall, Virginia Lewis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Foot and Ankle Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPodiatryOutreachPodiatristMedicineFoot (prosody)Service (business)RehabilitationHealth carePsychiatryFamily medicinePhysical therapyNursingAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are known to suffer from poor health and can be reluctant to seek healthcare except in crisis. Foot and ankle problems are a concern; as well as causing discomfort and pain, they may escalate from a minor problem to a very serious one without timely and appropriate treatment. Little is known about the foot and ankle problems of people experiencing homelessness. This paper describes a podiatric service specifically for people experiencing homelessness, which includes a fixed site as well as outreach services. The service operates as part of the Homelessness Team program at Cohealth, a large community health service in Melbourne. METHODS: The study used routinely collected data. Every person who was seen by the podiatrist in the Cohealth Homelessness Team in 2019, whether on site or on outreach, was included in the study (n = 295). Of these, 156 were attending for the first time and 139 were returning clients. People who used the service were predominantly rough sleeping (45.2%), with 32.2% in unstable or insecure housing and 22.6% recently housed. RESULTS: Skin and nail pathologies (68.1%), inadequate footwear (51.9%) and biomechanical issues (44.1%) were the most common presentations. People sleeping rough were particularly likely to present with biomechanical issues (50.8%), acute wound care needs (17.4%) or traumatic injury (10.6%). Most people presented with more than one issue (mean = 2.4), and new clients (mean = 2.53) and those rough sleeping (mean = 2.69) had more issues than others. Outreach was the most effective way to reach clients in the most difficult circumstances (48.9% of those in unstable housing, 34.8% of rough sleepers). Most of the clients (81.4%) had connections with other services offered by Cohealth, such as social work or physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that reaching and intervening on foot and ankle problems of people experiencing homelessness who may not seek care on their own could be achieved through a publicly funded health service, using simplified pathways to care including outreach. In addition to the long- and short- term benefits of the immediate podiatric treatment, building trust and connections through footcare may provide an entry point into accepting other health and welfare services.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.324 · 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