Complexity among people experiencing homelessness: A scoping review of definitions and measurement approaches

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
American journal of community psychology Pub Date : 2026-03-23 Epub Date: 2026-02-12 DOI:10.1002/ajcp.70052
Nick Kerman, Sena Gok, John Sylvestre, John Ecker, Sihan Zhang, Stephen W. Hwang, Nicole Kozloff, Vicky Stergiopoulos
{"title":"Complexity among people experiencing homelessness: A scoping review of definitions and measurement approaches","authors":"Nick Kerman,&nbsp;Sena Gok,&nbsp;John Sylvestre,&nbsp;John Ecker,&nbsp;Sihan Zhang,&nbsp;Stephen W. Hwang,&nbsp;Nicole Kozloff,&nbsp;Vicky Stergiopoulos","doi":"10.1002/ajcp.70052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People experiencing homelessness are often described as having “complex needs” for whom various health and housing interventions have been developed. However, there is no consensus on how this and similar terms are defined or measured. A prospectively registered scoping review was conducted to examine how “complexity” is defined and measured with people experiencing homelessness. Six academic databases were searched, along with several techniques for identifying grey literature and articles in unindexed journals. A total of 224 academic articles were included in the review (35 grey literature articles were included in a supplemental review). There were 220 definitions of complexity provided in 203 academic articles, which most commonly included mental illness and/or substance use problems. Physical health problems, multiple health conditions, justice system involvement and offending behaviours, health and social service use patterns, and type and characteristics of homelessness were also common. Three types of approaches for measuring complexity were identified in 29 articles: (1) instruments (primarily vulnerability indices and service prioritization tools), (2) risk adjustment/health resource prediction indices, and (3) study-specific algorithms and processes. Limited validation was common among the methodological approaches, with a few exceptions. Overall, the findings highlight how complexity is often underdefined, with limitations in its measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":7576,"journal":{"name":"American journal of community psychology","volume":"77 1-2","pages":"19-36"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of community psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajcp.70052","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People experiencing homelessness are often described as having “complex needs” for whom various health and housing interventions have been developed. However, there is no consensus on how this and similar terms are defined or measured. A prospectively registered scoping review was conducted to examine how “complexity” is defined and measured with people experiencing homelessness. Six academic databases were searched, along with several techniques for identifying grey literature and articles in unindexed journals. A total of 224 academic articles were included in the review (35 grey literature articles were included in a supplemental review). There were 220 definitions of complexity provided in 203 academic articles, which most commonly included mental illness and/or substance use problems. Physical health problems, multiple health conditions, justice system involvement and offending behaviours, health and social service use patterns, and type and characteristics of homelessness were also common. Three types of approaches for measuring complexity were identified in 29 articles: (1) instruments (primarily vulnerability indices and service prioritization tools), (2) risk adjustment/health resource prediction indices, and (3) study-specific algorithms and processes. Limited validation was common among the methodological approaches, with a few exceptions. Overall, the findings highlight how complexity is often underdefined, with limitations in its measurement.

无家可归者的复杂性:定义和衡量方法的范围审查。
无家可归者往往被描述为有“复杂需求”,为此制定了各种保健和住房干预措施。然而,对于如何定义或衡量这一术语和类似术语,并没有达成共识。进行了一项前瞻性注册范围审查,以检查如何定义和衡量无家可归者的“复杂性”。他们搜索了六个学术数据库,以及几种识别灰色文献和未索引期刊文章的技术。本综述共纳入224篇学术论文(补充综述纳入35篇灰色文献)。203篇学术文章提供了220种复杂性定义,其中最常见的包括精神疾病和/或药物使用问题。身体健康问题、多种健康状况、司法系统介入和犯罪行为、保健和社会服务使用模式以及无家可归的类型和特征也很常见。29篇文章确定了测量复杂性的三种方法:(1)工具(主要是脆弱性指数和服务优先排序工具),(2)风险调整/卫生资源预测指数,以及(3)研究特定算法和流程。有限的验证在方法学方法中很常见,只有少数例外。总的来说,这些发现强调了复杂性通常是如何被低估的,其测量也存在局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
9.70%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; theoretical papers; empirical reviews; reports of innovative community programs or policies; and first person accounts of stakeholders involved in research, programs, or policy. The journal encourages submissions of innovative multi-level research and interventions, and encourages international submissions. The journal also encourages the submission of manuscripts concerned with underrepresented populations and issues of human diversity. The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes research, theory, and descriptions of innovative interventions on a wide range of topics, including, but not limited to: individual, family, peer, and community mental health, physical health, and substance use; risk and protective factors for health and well being; educational, legal, and work environment processes, policies, and opportunities; social ecological approaches, including the interplay of individual family, peer, institutional, neighborhood, and community processes; social welfare, social justice, and human rights; social problems and social change; program, system, and policy evaluations; and, understanding people within their social, cultural, economic, geographic, and historical contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书