MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409337428 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic24254

What is known about women's experiences of homelessness in high income contexts? Evidence from a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4409337428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maxine Radcliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHousing FirstPsychologySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMental healthPsychiatryMental illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Homelessness is a significant public policy and health service challenge globally. Globally, prevalence of homelessness is underreported and is poorly defined. This review seeks to expand on the traditional narrative of homelessness as a primarily an experience of single men extending the narrative to women and their families. Homelessness as a concept is context bound is and hard to define, and many measurement approaches exclude women by design. This meta-ethnography presents a review of published evidence from studies located in high income countries that focus on women’s experiences. A deeper understanding of gender as a driver in social exclusion is critical to both planning and delivering improved health and care responses to marginalised and excluded groups. Methods: Following Noblit and Hare (1988) and the seven phases of the eMERGe guidelines (2019), we conducted a meta-ethnography. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ASSIA were completed for the years 2012 to 2022. We included peer-reviewed publications published in English that reported primary qualitative data on women’s experiences of homelessness in high income countries. A study protocol was followed for rigour. This is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022359937. Title and abstract screening were completed independently by three reviewers. The CASP checklist was utilised for methodological quality assessment. Data was 50% double blind extracted into a bespoke spreadsheet to ensure consistency of extraction and coding. We are in the final stages phases of the meta-ethnographic synthesis therefore present preliminary findings. Results: 33 articles reporting 32 studies from the 3078 records screened were included in the analysis. 37.5% of studies are from the USA (12/32) with 18.8 % (6/32) of studies reporting from Canada and from the UK, and 15.6% (5/32) studies were located in Australia. Evidence is also reported from Ireland, Israel and Poland. Using various qualitative designs, studies reported on 763 unique women’s experiences of homelessness. All studies included describe homelessness as a highly gendered experience with gender-based violence a key feature of the experience of homelessness for women, 9 of the 33 studies provide detailed evidence of this. A minority (6/32) studies present evidence of the recurrent nature of experiences of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and exploitation both as key antecedents to women becoming homelessness and in remaining so. Discussion: Preliminary emergent themes from the meta ethnography indicate that women themselves experience significant harms whilst homeless, particularly gender-based violence and that homeless women are often trapped in a revolving cycle of housing and social exclusion by this. Many of the service responses described by women are gender blind in design and delivery which inadvertently compounds the challenges they face. Conclusion: Women experiencing homelessness are at the sharp edges of societal gender disparities. This results in reduced access to housing and health supports. Studies included primarily provided evidence from women in a range of temporary sheltered settings in North America. More evidence is needed of unsheltered women’s experiences in a European context.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0160.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→