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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".