A Scoping Review of the Experiences and Outcomes of Stigma and Discrimination towards Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pervasive barrier to preventing, reducing, and ending homelessness is the stigmatization of and discrimination towards persons experiencing homelessness (PEH), termed “homeism.” To date, there has been no systematic review of the experiences and outcomes of stigmatization and discrimination among PEH or interventions to reduce this discrimination. To fill this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review to identify the ways in which PEH have been stigmatized and discriminated against, the results of these experiences, and interventions that have been used to reduce stigma and discrimination. We reviewed results from 12 databases with no date restrictions; 205 studies met our inclusion criteria. Thematic data analyses resulted in the identification of 12 categories. Using community consultation, the scoping review themes were reviewed and validated with 25 PEH or service providers in the homelessness sector and their feedback integrated into our results. Thematic categories included discrimination and stigmatization in healthcare, social services, workplaces and employment, and public spaces by the general public; discrimination and stigmatization from landlords, police and security guards, informal social networks, and by PEH toward PEH; discrimination and stigmatization linked to intersectional domains; PEH feelings about discrimination and stigmatization; outcomes of discrimination and stigmatization for PEH; and interventions to reduce stigma, discrimination, and prejudice towards PEH. Based on findings from this review, we argue that homeism serves as a social determinant of health as PEH confront multiple barriers to housing, income security, and healthcare due to interpersonal, institutional, structural, and intrapersonal stigmatization and discrimination.
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 | 0.019 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".