The experience of food insecurity during and following homelessness in high‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homelessness is a pervasive challenge caused by poverty which continues to grow in economically developed countries, posing significant health impacts (Fazel et al., Lancet, 384: 1529-1540, 2014). While food security related to poverty and low income has been investigated, this review specifically explores the experience of food security during and following homelessness. Given the fact that the health of individuals who experience homelessness is known to be poor and the importance of nutrition, this is a necessary contribution. Informed by a health equity lens, this review synthesises the findings and quality of the literature regarding experiences of food security during and following homelessness in high-income countries. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Qualitative studies published to date were obtained from six databases. We conducted a meta-aggregation of existing qualitative findings. Twenty-four studies on 462 participants were included in the review. Through meta-aggregation four themes were created: (1) imposed food options as a determinant of health out of my control; (2) obtaining food for survival despite stigma or other consequences; (3) situated within a system that maintains food insecurity; and (4) surviving hardships. Persons during and following homelessness in high-income countries face multiple challenges when securing food while situated in an oppressive system that lacks choice. Despite this, persons who have experienced homelessness demonstrate resilience by finding ways to meet their basic needs in the face of imposed barriers. Implications for research, policy and practice are offered.
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 | 0.020 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".