A Five-Year Follow-Up of a Survey of North American Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports the results of a five-year follow-up survey of private-pay outdoor behavioral healthcare (OBH) programs operating in the United States and Canada. A total of 65 of 102 programs identified as meeting certain characteristics responded to the survey and identified themselves as an OBH program that utilizes a clinical treatment model that primarily uses wilderness expeditions. The goal of the study was to determine industry trends by comparing the results of this study to results generated in a 2001 survey of OBH programs. An additional goal of the study was to discuss the findings in the context of recent reports on OBH and related programs concerning program management and practice. Key findings indicate that the number of OBH programs operating appears to have increased since 2001, and that the clear majority of these programs are state-licensed and half are accredited. Family involvement in programming has decreased, as has the number of families receiving co-pay to help alleviate the costs of treatment. Field instructor training and qualifications, supervision, and oversight of daily treatment and program operation, and drug detoxification practices at admission are all issues that warrant further investigation. A conclusion is made that care should be taken by policy makers and others when making broad generalizations that implicate all OBH treatment programs, when it appears that most programs are licensed, have licensed clinicians on staff, and adhere to best practices in treatment as identified by a variety of agency and association standards.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".