MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411570808 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1612516

High support housing for people with serious mental illness in Canada: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4411570808 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandra Sosnowski, M. Martins, Éric Latimer, Frank Sirotich, Julia Woodhall‐Melnik, Nick Kerman, Vicky Stergiopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mental Health AssociationUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOGrey literatureCINAHLContext (archaeology)Mental healthMEDLINESupportive housingSocial supportMental illnessCitationQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineCommunity integrationNursingGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryPsychological interventionPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mental health supportive housing aims to provide accommodation and support services to people with serious mental illness (SMI). Various supportive housing models have emerged in Canada post-deinstitutionalization, with heterogeneous and limited available information on congregate-based high support housing models (HSH) that provide 24/7 onsite supports. A registered scoping review was undertaken to identify the models and outcomes of HSH for people with SMI in Canada, including those exiting homelessness. Methods: Four academic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus) were searched, in addition to backward and forward citation searching and strategies for identifying grey literature. HSH configurations and outcomes (e.g., housing stability and preferences; physical and behavioral health; community integration, social support, and quality of life; costs) were investigated within the Canadian context. Results: A total of 27,180 academic articles and 164 grey literature reports were initially screened. Following full-text review of 337 academic and 109 grey literature articles, and citation searching, a total of 58 academic articles and 31 grey literature reports were included in the review. The characteristics, objectives, and outcomes of HSH models were mixed. Three nonexclusive types of HSH were identified: [1] custodial HSH, [2] recovery-oriented HSH, and [3] alternatives to hospital programs and other institutions. Most studies were uncontrolled, though there was preliminary evidence to support improvements in HSH residents' health and functioning; gains in social support, quality of life, and community integration; reductions in housing and service costs, particularly when compared to the cost of inpatient hospitalization; and satisfaction with living arrangements, supports, and relationships. However, the findings were not unequivocal, and the diversity of methodologies and HSH models limited further comparisons of outcomes between the different types of HSH. Conclusion: People with SMI experiencing complex and diverse needs can benefit from the services and supports provided by HSH. However, research on HSH is less developed compared to other, well-studied housing interventions. Further research on congregate housing settings, including their long-term outcomes and recovery-oriented practices, is warranted.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0220.035
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207