How Does Living in a Homeless Hostel Impact on Residents Lived Experience of Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living in a homeless hostel can be challenging. This global scoping review explored the impact of living in a homeless hostel on residents lived experience of health and wellbeing. A systematic process was followed using Arksey and O’Malley framework for scoping reviews with the addition of the PRISMA‐ScR checklist. In total, 1094 articles were identified through database searches and a thesis search on Google Scholar. Screening of title/abstract and then full text, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulted in 40 papers being included in the review. Twenty‐two were carried out in the United Kingdom (UK), nine in the United States (US), four in Australia, two in Canada, one in South Africa, one in Iran and one study had a worldwide focus. The findings identify difficulties in accessing care along with incidences of discrimination, being dismissed, disrespected and other experiences of stigmatic encounters. Survival tactics and coping strategies like drug and alcohol use were employed. A lack of stability and routine added to the challenges of living in that environment. The hostel itself and the experience of homelessness were found to impact on health and well‐being. This review demonstrates a picture of disadvantage, discrimination and increased disease within the populations who reside in homeless hostels. More research is needed on lived experiences of those residing in homeless hostels to understand their experiences and inform the creation of environments more conducive to good health and wellbeing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".