Cancer risk factors and access to cancer prevention services for people experiencing homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is one of the most pressing global health issues, and populations with complex needs, such as people experiencing homelessness, have higher cancer incidence and mortality rates compared with the housed population. We mapped the evidence on cancer risk factors as well as barriers and facilitators to cancer prevention services among people experiencing homelessness, which is key to localising research gaps and identifying strategies for tailored interventions adapted to people experiencing homelessness. The results of 40 studies contribute to an understanding of the dynamic, interactive factors at different levels that determine access to cancer prevention services: socioeconomic, psychological, and physical factors (individual level); practical support and relational loops between health-care providers and people experiencing homelessness (interpersonal level); housing and regular medical care (system level); and interventions to facilitate access to cancer prevention (policy level). Furthermore, studies reported higher prevalence of various cancer-associated risk factors among people experiencing homelessness with the most common being tobacco use, ranging from 26% to 73%. The results show the importance of interventions to facilitate cancer prevention services through social support and low-threshold interventions (eg, navigation programmes), and training health-care staff in creating supportive and trusting environments that increase the likelihood of the continuity of care among people experiencing 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".