Cooperative Housing: A Catalyst for Health and Wellbeing? A Scoping review of English and Spanish Literature (2004–2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review evaluates the impact of cooperative housing on health and wellbeing by synthesizing findings from studies published in English and Spanish over a 20-year period (2004–2024). The review aims to assess how cooperative housing models contribute to physical and mental health, reduce social isolation, and foster health equity. A comprehensive search across 12 academic databases yielded 35 studies, which were categorized by study design: 48.57 % qualitative, 17.14 % mixed-method, 8.57 % quantitative, 14.29 % literature reviews, and 11.43 % with unspecified methodologies. Most studies were conducted in Spain, Canada, and the United States. Findings suggest that cooperative housing enhances mental and physical health, particularly in senior and intergenerational communities, while qualitative research provides rich insights into residents' lived experiences. Despite the positive outcomes, most studies utilized cross-sectional designs, underscoring the need for more longitudinal research to establish causality. This review identifies key gaps in the literature, particularly the underrepresentation of diverse populations and the limited integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. While cooperative housing shows potential as a tool to improve health and wellbeing, further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base and inform policy development. • Cooperative housing enhances health and well-being via social and emotional support. • Benefits are strongest in seniors and intergenerational housing communities. • Gaps include underrepresentation of diverse populations and longitudinal studies. • Cooperative housing fosters health equity and reduces social isolation. • Findings synthesize 20 years of English and Spanish research (2004–2024).
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".