Effectiveness of employment‐based interventions for persons experiencing homelessness: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment is frequently desired by persons who experience homelessness yet is often elusive. Little is known about the range and effectiveness of employment-based interventions evaluated in existing literature on key psychosocial outcomes including employment participation, mental well-being, housing tenure, community integration and substance use. To identify and synthesise existing studies, we conducted a systematic review of effectiveness using the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Following the removal of duplicates, we screened 13,398 titles and abstracts, and reviewed 79 studies at the full-text review stage using two independent raters. A total of 16 studies met criteria for inclusion in a narrative synthesis and were subjected to critical appraisal. The majority of studies were conducted in the US (n = 14; 87.5%) with other studies published in Canada (n = 1; 6.3%) and Australia (n = 1; 6.3%). Interventions evaluated in existing studies included combined substance use and vocational skills interventions (n = 7; 43.8%), supported employment (n = 6; 37.5%), and integrated supports including an employment component (n = 3; 18.8%). The effectiveness of these interventions on employment, mental well-being, housing tenure, community integration, and substance use is presented. Findings suggest that research evaluating employment interventions for persons who experience homelessness is in an early stage of development. Researchers and practitioners may consider collaborating with persons with lived experiences of homelessness and practitioners in co-designing and modifying existing approaches to target key outcomes more effectively. Policymakers may consider allocating resources to such initiatives to further the development of practice and research aimed at supporting persons who experience homelessness to secure and sustain employment during and following homelessness.
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 | 0.022 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".