The Impact of Reality Therapy on Metacognition, Stress and Hope in Addicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Drug dependence is a major problem in our country and in international level. Reality therapy is an internal control system that determines why and how to choose the options that are set for our lives. This study aimed to investigate the effect of reality therapy on metacognition, stress and decline in hope in drug addicts. MATERIALS & METHODS: This study is quasi-experimental study. Samples were chosen convenient among 60 drug addicts in Jahrom in 2012. Samples were randomly divided into two groups (each group = 30) of intervention and control groups. Control group received usual care and experimental group received reality therapy. RESULTS: Results revealed that there was significant difference between the mean scores of metacognition and hope before and after the intervention of experimental group (p < 0.05). Also, there was statistically significant difference between the two groups from these two variables (p < 0.05).but, Stress level wasn't statistically different in two groups. DISCUSSION: Reality therapy is a method that emphasizes the accountability and the current behavior of individuals. Setting negative emotions, reality therapy promotes metacognition and, through increasing accountability to self-behavior improves hope.
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 | 0.004 | 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".