An environmental scan of residential treatment service provision in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Ontario has one of the highest rates of substance-related harms in Canada. Residential treatment programs in the province provide a variety of in-house treatment services to support the needs of individuals with substance use disorders (SUD). However, these programs are not standardized, often varying in the type, quality, and availability of services offered, including evidence-based interventions such as Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT). Local treatment systems are also rather fragmented and complex to navigate, creating barriers for potential services users to identify and make informed choices on available treatment options. METHODS: Between May to August 2023, we conducted an environmental scan to capture available information on all publicly-funded residential treatment programs in Ontario using the ConnexOntario service portal, a government-funded, health services information platform. Data were captured on organization name, geographical location, program description, program type (residential addictions treatment or supportive recovery programs), eligibility criteria, target population, the program's OAT policies, number of available beds, minimum and maximum length of stay, projected wait times, funding source, and associated fees for program admission. Data were extracted and organized by geographic region, and findings were presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 102 residential addiction treatment programs and 36 residential supportive recovery programs in Ontario were identified. The scan noted substantial regional variations in program availability and wait times, along with a lack of programs tailored to unique populations such as women, youth, and Indigenous peoples. There is also a paucity of publicly-available information on program offerings, including detailed specifics on OAT policies within residential treatment programs that are crucial to ensuring that the services being offered are safe and grounded in evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the scan highlight notable gaps in program types, offerings, and availability among residential treatment programs in the province, including a lack of standardization on OAT policies across programs. Efforts should be made to ensure access to treatment-specific program information relevant to potential service users and to enhance coordinated access to residential treatment services in the province.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».