The scope of supportive housing for adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Many individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) face challenges accessing suitable housing support, which increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes and daily living difficulties that can persist throughout adulthood. Our rapid review assesses the current scope of literature that reports on existing housing programs and supports for adults with FASD.Methods PubMed, Social Work, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts were searched to identify published peer-reviewed articles. Grey literature was identified through a Google search strategy and a manual search through FASD-specific organizational websites in the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. A total of 866 citations were screened in Covidence, nine of which met the inclusion criteria for analysis: five peer-reviewed articles and four grey literature sources.Results Adults with FASD face significant barriers when accessing supportive housing services. The findings underscore the need for FASD-informed approaches to foster interdependence among adults, their families, and support networks.Conclusions Supportive housing programs for adults with FASD are sparse, and existing programs often fall short of addressing the holistic needs of these individuals. Future research prioritizing the lived and living experiences of adults accessing support, focusing on the effectiveness of specific support strategies, is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".