Risk factors and circumstances associated with homelessness in older adults: a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Circumstances more common with aging may challenge the ability for older adults to maintain appropriate housing. The objective of this scoping review was to identify the risk factors and conditions associated with homelessness in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched OVID, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and Social Work Abstracts from inception to February 2023. We included studies of older adults (defined as 50 years of age or older) or completed subgroup analyses accounting for older adults. We mapped the risk factors and conditions using an ecological framework (individual, relational, and structural/societal components). RESULTS: Sixty-five studies were included. Individual factors included identifying membership in a racialized group and experiencing psychiatric illnesses or substance use disorders. Relational factors included being unmarried, relationship breakdown, and adverse childhood events. Structural factors included the lack of affordable housing or income supports and systemic discrimination. Those experiencing first-onset late-life homelessness were more likely to be female, had relative lifelong socioeconomic stability, but experienced sudden relational or economic changes. Those experiencing chronic homelessness were more likely to be male, often facing persistent structural vulnerabilities with comorbid substance use or psychiatric disorders. Important research gaps include measures of social support and age- and sex-disaggregated analyses. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Key individual, relational, and structural factors are associated with homelessness in older adults. Adverse experiences and structural factors, such as social losses and isolation, have important implications toward the risk of homelessness at different stages in life. Further research evaluating age-appropriate interventions is paramount.
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 | 0.039 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".