Determinants of Hospital Use and Physician Services Among Adults With a History of Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:People experiencing homelessness have diverse patterns of healthcare use. This study examined the distribution and determinants of healthcare encounters among adults with a history of homelessness.Methods:Administrative healthcare records were linked with survey data for a general cohort of adults with a history of homelessness and a cohort of homeless adults with mental illness. Binary and count models were used to identify factors associated with hospital admissions, emergency department visits and physician visits for comparison across the 2 cohorts.Results:During the 1-year follow-up period, a higher proportion of people in the cohort with a mental illness used any inpatient (27% vs 14%), emergency (63% vs 53%), or physician services (90% vs 76%) compared to the general homeless cohort. People from racialized groups were less likely use nearly all health services, most notably physician services. Other factors, such as reporting of a regular source of care, poor perceived general health, and diagnosed chronic conditions were associated with higher use of all health services except psychiatric inpatient careConclusion:When implementing interventions for patients with the greatest health needs, we must consider the unique factors that contribute to higher healthcare use, as well as the barriers to healthcare access.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".