MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6996236288

Response shift in quality of life ratings in homeless individuals wih mental illness: a residuals analysis of the at home/chez soi study

2015· dissertation· en· W6996236288 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Meaning (existential)Quality (philosophy)Randomized controlled trialMental illnessPsychological intervention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The At Home/Chez Soi project was a pan-Canadian randomized controlled trial of a Housing First intervention among 2,148 homeless individuals with mental illness. The trial provided subsidized private-market apartments with recovery-oriented support services to treatment (HF) participants, while Treatment As Usual (TAU) controls were left to obtain services available in the community. Although the HF group reported significant improvements in quality of life (QOL) compared to controls, greater improvements were expected given observed group contrasts in both housing stability and a subsample's qualitative interviews. Recognized in the literature as a bias affecting self-reported QOL measurements, response shift occurs when a life event (e.g., an illness or a treatment) changes the meaning of an individual’s QOL rating. Their internal standards may change or different values defining QOL may be reprioritized or redefined, affecting the accuracy of longitudinal quality of life comparisons, such as those of the At Home/Chez Soi project. Following reviews of the literature on QOL among individuals with mental illness and among the homeless, as well as a review of theories of response shift and methods for its identification, the current thesis seeks to adjust for response shift in comparisons of QOL in the At Home/Chez Soi participants.Methods: A secondary analysis method developed in previous literature allows for the identification of response shift using the residuals from an explanatory model of the QOL outcome. Based on a random intercept model explaining variability in the 7-point global QOL item (of the 20-item QOL index [QOLI-20]), participants’ degree of response shift was defined by the standard deviation (sd) of their respective residual values. These sd values were accounted for in group comparisons of both the QOLI-20 total score and global item outcomes, allowing for estimates of the intervention’s effect on QOL to vary according to degree of participants’ response shift. A sensitivity analysis reassessed findings after excluding observations for which interviewers felt responses were invalid or insincere, under two levels of exclusion criteria (A and B).Results: A model explaining 62% of QOL variability was estimated using 23 covariates. Participants’ mean sd of residuals was 0.95 (min: 0.00, max: 3.93). HF treatments effects on QOLI-20 total scores diminished when estimated at higher levels of response shift (1 point increments in sd of residuals), for most follow-up periods (interaction at 6 mo. β = -3.97, p = .052; at 12 mo. β = -3.20, p = .109; 18 mo. β = -4.15, p = .043) but not at 24 months (β = 0.14, p = .946). A non-significant decrease was seen in the HF treatment odds ratio (OR) from an ordinal logistic regression of the QOLI-20 global item, collapsed across follow-up periods (interaction β = 0.83, p = .175). Following sensitivity analyses, the HF treatment x sd of residuals interactions no longer met significance levels as exclusion criteria were applied to the QOLI-20 total score analyses. However, the interaction term of the QOLI-20 global item analysis became significant under the more stringent exclusion criterion B (β = 0.69, p = 0.027), while criterion A had little impact on the original estimate. Conclusion: These findings suggest that unexpectedly modest effects of the HF intervention on QOL may be explained by response shift, a novel observation in the homelessness literature. A more conservative conclusion from the results is that QOL improvements from a HF intervention are more evident in individuals for whom reported and expected QOL differ by an amount that is relatively consistent over time. HF treatment effects are smaller in participants whose residual patterns fluctuate over time. This fluctuation is interpreted as response shift, in accordance with previous literature, though alternative interpretations may also explain some of these patterns.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→