The Systematic Integrative Narrative Review on Community Support Practices and Outcomes in Social and Community Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic integrative review provides a unique pioneering perspective on community support practices in social, community, and cooperative housing, improving our understanding of the practice and its outcomes. Two research questions guided this work: 1) What are the community support practices in social and community housing serving individuals in the context of socioeconomic deprivation in permanent housing structures? And 2) What are the outcomes of the community support practices in social and community housing. Studies describing and/or reporting on outcomes of community support practices in social and community housing (psychosocial, economic, and health/mental health) were included from the journals’ inception to September 2022. A total of 42 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 20 were qualitative, 14 quantitative, and eight mixed-method studies. Of them all, 34 studies reported on public housing, four on community housing, and four on cooperative housing. Results inform practitioners and decision makers on issues related to community practices in permanent supportive housing and their outcomes in relation to tenure orientations and potential impact. Community practice workers are pillars in housing settings who provide bridging, bonding, and linking that builds social capital in adverse conditions. This review provides insight into innovative research avenues in this domain, while bringing to the forefront the fundamental challenges of individual support pathways to collective empowerment, increased health needs, and unequalled peer-tenant support engagement, as well as their precarious conditions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".