Mindfulness for Addiction Recovery: A Cognitive Disciplinary Preventive Approach to Avoid Relapse into Substance Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper is based on a literature review and a pilot study that observed a small group of participants in a bi-weekly substance abuse treatment program that employs mindfulness training to help subjects avoid relapse into substance abuse. “Mindfulness” is defined as a state of non-judgemental self-awareness. The program that we propose combines three treatment modalities: 1) yoga practice, 2) silent meditation practice, and 3) self-reflection, a peer-led discussion on issues affecting recovery from substance abuse. Discussion of issues affecting substance abuse employs “cognitive disciplines” derived from the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and Buddhist teachings on “mindfulness” and “relief from suffering”. The pilot study examines the effect of combining stress reduction and mindfulness of the body, induced by yoga practice; mindfulness of mental processes, aided by silent meditation, and self-awareness of one’s emotional and behavioural responses to stress, learned using the “cognitive disciplines”. This multi-disciplinary process is applied to influence one’s experience of stress and addictive patterns of behaviour. The present case study examines whether the combination of the three treatment modalities improves the participants’ ability to avoid relapse into substance abuse. This study follows an approach similar to the one used by Bryan and Zipp (2014) in their research involving the effects of mindfulness meditation during yoga and cycling from a physical-behavioural perspective and Groves’ (2014) approach to mental wellness. Our preliminary findings of the participants’ observations resulting from the pilot study and our literature review were combined into a theoretical framework which is comprised of a Three Pronged Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TPCBT) for addiction 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".