A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Financial Incentives in Case Management for Homeless Adults With Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives can facilitate behavior change and service engagement in health care settings, but research on their use with adults experiencing homelessness is limited. This study examined the effectiveness of financial incentives in improving service engagement and health outcomes among homeless adults with mental illness in Toronto. METHODS: The authors of this randomized controlled trial recruited 176 participants receiving brief multidisciplinary case management services for homeless adults with mental illness after hospital discharge. In a 1:1 randomization design, 87 participants received a financial incentive of CAN$20 for every week they remained engaged with the service for up to 6 months. The remaining 89 participants received treatment as usual. The primary outcome was service contact rates for up to 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included self-reported health status, mental health symptoms, substance use, quality of life, housing stability, acute health service use, and working alliance. Negative binomial regression models, analyses of covariance, generalized estimating equations models, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine differences between the financial incentive and treatment-as-usual groups across outcomes of interest. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the financial incentive and treatment-as-usual groups in service contact rates or any of the secondary outcomes examined over the 6-month period. CONCLUSIONS: In low-barrier, brief case management programs tailored to the needs of adults experiencing homelessness, financial incentives may not affect service engagement or health outcomes. Further research is needed to identify the effect of financial incentives on engagement in other services, including housing-based interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".