MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389281277 · doi:10.1080/23303131.2023.2287741

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Harm Reduction in Emergency Women’s Shelters - Implications for Practice: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4389281277 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Muth, Angela Hovey, Keith Brownlee, Susan Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarm reductionHarmInclusion (mineral)NursingMedicineEmergency departmentSubstance usePsychologyPublic relationsPsychiatryPublic healthPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review explored available research focused on ways emergency women’s shelters address substance use issues with survivors of intimate partner violence. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The articles tended to identify more barriers (e.g., concerns about safety of all residents and staff) and fewer facilitators (e.g., clear policies to guide practice) to implementing harm reduction within women’s shelters. Comprehensive training and education about substance use and harm reduction for shelter staff and residents was suggested for successful implementation. More high-quality evidence is needed to understand the viability of implementing harm reduction in emergency women’s shelters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Services Organizations Management Leadership & GovernanceSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207