Metacognition in persons with substance abuse: Findings and implications for occupational therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addiction is a massive public health problem in which a person's occupational life is compromised and metacognition is impaired. Occupational therapists may play a critical role in addiction rehabilitation, but more information about patterns of metacognitive deficit co-occurring with addictive behaviour is needed to develop interventions that specifically target these impairments. PURPOSE: This study examined whether persons with addiction(s) demonstrated specific patterns of metacognitive deficit on four subscales of metacognition measuring self-reflectivity, understanding others' thoughts, decentration, and mastery. METHOD: Using a mixed-methods design, qualitative data were obtained via the Indiana Psychiatric Illness Interview, which was then rated using a quantitative scale, the Metacognition Assessment Scale-Abbreviated. FINDINGS: Persons with addiction(s) demonstrated significant impairments in metacognitive mastery but not other areas of metacognition. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapy interventions for addiction should focus on improving metacognitive mastery. Future efficacy studies of interventions to improve mastery and overall outcomes are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".