Homelessness and health-related outcomes: an umbrella review of observational studies and randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Homelessness has been associated with multiple detrimental health outcomes across observational studies. However, relatively few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on people who experience homelessness (PEH). Thus, this umbrella review ranked the credibility of evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of observational studies investigating the associations between homelessness and any health outcome as well as RCTs targeting health needs in this population. METHODS: Several databases were systematically searched from inception through April 28, 2021. Any SR and/or MA reporting quantitative data and providing a control group were eligible for inclusion. The credibility of the evidence derived from observational studies was appraised by considering the significance level of the association and the largest study, the degree of heterogeneity, the presence of small-study effects as well as excess significance bias. The credibility of evidence was then ranked in five classes. For SRs and/or MAs of RCTs, we considered the level of significance and whether the prediction interval crossed the null. The AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR-plus instruments were adopted to further assess the methodological quality of SRs and/or MAs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed to further appraise the methodological quality of prospective cohort studies only; a sensitivity analysis limited to higher quality studies was conducted. RESULTS: Out of 1549 references, 8 MAs and 2 SRs were included. Among those considering observational studies, 23 unique associations were appraised. Twelve of them were statistically significant at the p≤0.005 level. Included cases had worst health-related outcomes than controls, but only two associations reached a priori-defined criteria for convincing (class I) evidence namely hospitalization due to any cause among PEH diagnosed with HIV infection, and the occurrence of falls within the past year among PEH. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument, the methodological quality of all included SRs and/or MAs was "critically low." Interventional studies were scant. CONCLUSION: While homelessness has been repeatedly associated with detrimental health outcomes, only two associations met the criteria for convincing evidence. Furthermore, few RCTs were appraised by SRs and/or MAs. Our umbrella review also highlights the need to standardize definitions of homelessness to be incorporated by forthcoming studies to improve the external validity of the findings in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.123 | 0.325 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".