The Quality of Life of South African Homeless Adults Aged 50 and Older in Housing First Facilities: Implications for Service Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The population of homeless adults is on the rise, yet little is known about their well-being and functioning. With the exception of Ghana and Nigeria, there is a hiatus in the existing literature on studies conducted in African countries, focusing on homelessness among adults aged 50 years and older. Aim: To determine how homeless adults (50 and older) in Housing First Facilities in the City of Tshwane, South Africa, perceive their quality of life. Methods: The study followed a quantitative approach to determine the quality of life of homeless adults in Housing First facilities using the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF), which measures the quality of life based on the physical and psychological well-being, social relationships, and environment domains on a 5-point response scale. Data was collected from two Housing First facilities within the City of Tshwane, and the WHOQOL-BREF was administered face-to-face with the participating homeless adults. Results: Overall, participants perceived their quality of life (M=3.26) as neither poor nor good and were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their health (M=3.55). Participants (n=38) scored the highest in the psychological domain (M=3.77), followed by the physical (M=3.64) and environment (M=3.32) domains. The social relationships (M=3.22) domain scored the lowest. The results revealed that participants had a moderate perception of their quality of life across all domains. Considerations and recommendations: The results suggest that the quality of life of homeless adults in Housing First facilities needs improvement. Based on the Biopsychosocial (BPS) perspective, recommendations for improvement are offered to target personal and structural barriers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".