An Examination of Individual and Group Outcomes of Male and Female Community Treatment Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: To examine outcome differences between men and women matched to either individual or group community-based treatment. Design: A pre-post design that began with 173 participants, 115 male and 58 female. Of 90 males matched to individual counseling only 16 attended while 12 of 13 matched to group counseling attended. Of 45 female participants matched to individual counseling one-third attended while six of seven women referred to group counseling attended. The BASIS-32 was used to examine outcome differences. Findings: All participants who completed counseling had significantly better post-treatment scores than pre-treatment scores. Significantly more men than women dropped out after the assessment process was completed, prior to commencing treatment. Dropout was more likely to occur if a person was assigned to individual than to group counseling. Despite clinically matching clients to either individual or group counseling there were no statistical significant differences in pre-test scores between either counseling modality for men or for women. However, six-month post-treatment scores for both men and women who had participated in group counseling were significantly lower than for those who had received individual counseling. Conclusion: The most important attribute in achieving a positive outcome was attending counseling, something more women than men did, though more positive sustained change was also observed in those assigned to group rather than to individual counseling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".