Perception of unmet needs and association with benzodiazepine misuse among patients on a methadone maintenance treatment programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and method To examine patients' perceptions of unmet needs during methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), and to explore the relationship between co-occurring benzodiazepine misuse and severity of needs. A cross-sectional survey was carried out at an MMT programme in Dublin, Ireland. All patients were invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Of the 191 eligible patients, 107 agreed to participate and completed the Camberwell Assessment of Need questionnaire. Results Unmet needs for substance misuse treatments, daytime activities, socialisation, money management and psychological distress were high. Fifty-two respondents (49%) reported using non-prescribed benzodiazepines during the past month. Compared with non-users of benzodiazepines, benzodiazepine users reported higher ratings of total and unmet needs ( P < 0.05). The number of days using benzodiazepines predicted the severity of needs. Clinical implications The findings highlight the importance of addressing coexisting psychological needs, and further support enhancing treatment interventions for benzodiazepine misuse or dependence among patients on MMT.
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 | 0.000 | 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".