MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408280563 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.241282

Outcomes for people experiencing homelessness with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments in Canada, compared with housed patients

2025· article· en· W4408280563 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Siying S. Li, Kimberlyn McGrail, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Michael R. Law, Corinne M. Hohl

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineBetacoronavirusMedical emergencyCoronavirus InfectionsFamily medicineVirologyPathologyOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have different COVID-19 outcomes than housed patients in Canada remains unclear. We sought to ascertain whether rates of in-hospital mortality, hospital admission, critical care admission, and mechanical ventilation differed between PEH and housed people with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a propensity score-matched cohort study to compare the outcomes of PEH and housed patients presenting to emergency departments for acute symptomatic COVID-19. We used data from the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. Covariates in our propensity score model included age, sex, comorbidities, substance use, vaccination status, previous do-not-resuscitate documentation, hospital type, province and calendar quarter of presentation to the emergency department, symptom duration, and severity of illness on presentation. RESULTS: We found no difference in mortality for PEH (3%) compared with a propensity score-matched cohort of housed patients (3%) (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.74). We also found no difference in admission rates for PEH (44%) versus housed patients (45%). There was a reduced rate of critical care admission for PEH compared with housed patients (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-1.00), and a trend toward decreased use of mechanical ventilation for PEH versus housed patients, which was not significant (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35-1.02). INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in mortality for PEH with COVID-19 compared with those who were housed. A signal for reduced critical care admission among PEH may reflect differential treatment unrelated to clinical characteristics that we matched for. Future research on resource allocation during pandemics could shed light on potential inequities for vulnerable populations and how best to address them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→