A Participatory Evaluation of a First Nations Substance Abuse Treatment Centre
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research on alcohol and substance use for First Nations populations frequently describes the problem (nature and severity, risk factors), but does not often address intervention and what works well for clients who engage in treatment. This thesis provides a comprehensive participatory evaluation of the six-week residential ‘Namgis Treatment Centre (NTC) program in Alert Bay, British Columbia. Client intake files ( n = 218) were reviewed for clients who participated in 17 different six-week sessions over a two and a half years along with reviewing evaluation forms completed by clients ( n = 131) at the end of treatment. Assessing program theory involved developing a program logic model. Assessing program impact included administering a telephone follow-up survey, developed in conjunction with all of the NTC staff, with clients who had been out of treatment for 3 to 37 months ( n = 91, 52.7% male and 47.3% female participants). In total, 24 clients were abstinent at the time of the interview, and 67 clients (73.6%) had a relapse on average 155.29 ( SD = 167.77) days after completing treatment. Cox regression univariate and bivariate analysis revealed that pre-treatment variables (age, gender, education, history of abuse, presence of medical or psychological issue and involvement in culture) were not associated with time to relapse or what happened after relapse (abstinence again, harm reduction or resuming pre-treatment consumption levels). Post-treatment variables (aftercare plan, support from friends, family, a drug and alcohol counsellor, AA/NA meetings, AA/NA sponsor) were not associated with time to relapse except using the after care plan. However, the aggregate of support items influenced what happened after relapse. The greater number of supports the client had, the more likely they were to be completely abstinent, and the less supports the client had, the more likely they were to completely relapse. NTC staff and community members were consulted with for their input into the interpretation and implication of the findings, and recommendations were shared with key NTC policy makers. Based on the findings in this project, it is apparent that follow-up and aftercare are critical for effective treatment and lasting behaviour change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».