Exploring the Daily Lives of People on Methadone Maintenance Treatment: An Occupational Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualitative study was undertaken with five people on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) to better understand their experiences and daily routines. Through an in-depth exploration of their everyday occupations, we sought to reveal the ongoing challenges and barriers they face to accessing treatment. The concept of occupation refers to ‘all that people need, want and are required to do’ but also extends further to encompass ‘how doing contributes to processes of being, becoming and belonging’ (Huot and Laliberte Rudman, 2015). This research employed a qualitative intrinsic case study methodology (Stake, 2005). Using an occupational perspective informed by a framework for occupational justice (Stadnyk et al., 2005), the participants’ narratives are presented according to four themes highlighting key aspects of their experiences: (a) descent into chaos; (b) MMT as a bridge to recovery from addiction; (c) a new normal daily life; and (d) hopes for moving forward. The findings illustrate how structural factors and contextual factors interact to create occupational injustices. Thus, MMT practices and policies should consider the occupational implications described in this article to enhance patients’ experiences and further support their 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it