Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41250067›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Homelessness prediction models in high-income countries: a scoping review.

Luis Antonio Stängl, Evelina Baniunaite, Daniel Fürstenau, Stefanie Schreiter, Katherine A Koh, Chisato Ito, Derin Marbin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Luis Antonio StänglCharite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. luisstaengl@posteo.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0948-8558
Evelina BaniunaiteCharite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9922-7642
Daniel FürstenauSchool of Business & Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8490-7707
Stefanie SchreiterDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9598-0029
Katherine A KohDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, US.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5076-3642
Chisato Ito *Institute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8349-8224
Derin Marbin *Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-4220

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis scoping review aims to provide an overview of prediction models for future homelessness in high-income countries.

backgroundSeveral risk prediction models for homelessness have been developed and are being used in practice. However, no comprehensive review has captured the full scope of these models in regard to their target populations, data and variables used, type of model, and model validation.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Bielefeld BASE without language or time restraints. Following the JBI guidelines, screening was performed by two independent reviewers; the data were extracted by one, of which 20% was checked by a second one. Studies that reported on the development or validation of prediction models for becoming homeless in high-income countries, and whose study population included individuals residing in these countries who were not homeless at the time of recruitment, were included.

resultsOur search resulted in 9,371 deduplicated records across databases. 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 14 were model development studies and one was a validation study. 13 studies (87%) were conducted in the US, six of them in New York City (NYC). One study was conducted in Canada and one in Australia. Regarding the target population, three studies developed models for veterans and six studies targeted welfare applicants or recipients. One study focused on both youth emerging from public assistance and unemployed workers. Three studies developed models for the general population, while two were conducted in emergency departments. Of the 15 studies, 14 used traditional regression, seven employed other machine learning algorithms and six used both methods. The most common predictor types were: demographics, age, previous experiences of homelessness, human capital such as employment status or total debt and clinical variables such as physical or mental health status. Three studies combined geographical-level and individual-level data. In total, 25 models were identified, two of which were externally validated.

conclusionsWe found a broad spectrum of heterogeneity of models and population studies, an increase in model development over time, and limited use of calibration metrics. Prediction models for future homelessness have the potential to improve risk targeting and the effectiveness of preventive programs. As only two models were externally validated, we recommend that future research focuses on model evaluation.

Indexed as

Developed CountriesIll-Housed PersonsForecastingHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsHomelessPredictionPrediction modelPreventionScoping review

Identifiers

PMID41250067
PMCPMC12621412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.