The influence of lived experience with addiction and recovery on practice-related decisions among professionals working in addiction agencies serving women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The study objectives were to: (1) understand the value attributed to the lived experience of addiction and recovery among professionals working in addiction agencies serving women in Canada and (2) describe how lived experience influence practice-related decision-making.Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted with a purposeful sample of 26 addiction professionals from 24 addiction agencies. Subsequently, a secondary analysis was conducted to identify data that would provide greater insight into issues related to the use of lived experience in decision-making.Findings: Participants who either described their personal history of addiction or discussed the influence of others’ lived experience on decisions made within the agency indicated that: (1) some professionals perceive lived experience and research evidence as two dichotomous concepts, viewing lived experience as more credible than research evidence; (2) personal experience with a particular treatment can guide treatment decisions; (3) strong adherence to only one source of evidence leads to intra-organizational conflict and (4) different sources of evidence in decision-making need to be acknowledged to inform practice.Conclusion: The addiction field can benefit from increased understanding of decision-making as a multifaceted process involving different sources of evidence, including addiction professionals’ lived experiences of addiction and recovery.
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".