MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153812658 · doi:10.1300/j069v26n03_08

Factors Associated with Pretreatment and Treatment Dropouts Among Clients Admitted to Medical Withdrawal Management

2007· article· en· W2153812658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xin Li, Huiying Sun, Ajay Puri, David C. Marsh, Aslam H. Anis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Addictive Diseases · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthProvidence Health CareCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionMedicineMethadoneMethadone maintenanceReferralPsychiatrySubstance useMultivariate analysisFamily medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to identify factors associated with pretreatment and treatment dropouts among individuals accessing an inpatient medical withdrawal management program (Vancouver Detox). Two thousand five hundred sixty-six unique clients, who were referred to Vancouver Detox over two-year period, were assessed. Demographic and drug related variables were analyzed as possible risk factors, and two multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. We found that being male, being aboriginal, having no children, no fixed address, alcohol as a preferred substance, and being on methadone maintenance treatment at referral were significantly associated with high pretreatment dropout. Significant risk factors for treatment dropout were: being younger, having HCV infection, having a preferred substance other than alcohol, having opiates as a preferred substance, and being discharged on welfare check issue periods or weekends. These findings may help clinicians and decision-makers to initiate corresponding preventive measures to decrease unnecessary attritions and improve utilization of treatment resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Addictive DiseasesSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207