Effectiveness of Cognitive-behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of Iranian Male Drug Addicts at a State Rehabilitation Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed at examining the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) group intervention on measures of self-efficacy and level of relapse for abstinence among Iranian male drug addicts.METHODS: An experimental research design was adopted in the current study in which the participants consisted of 75 male drug addicts who were consecutively admitted as outpatients at a state rehabilitation center. They were randomly allocated to experimental (N=37) and control (N=38) groups. They completed the Iranian version of Drug Taking Confidence Questionnaire (DTCQ-IV) and took urine test as pre-test and post-test. The CBT group intervention was conducted at 12 sessions, one session per week. It was hypothesized that there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups regarding self-efficacy and level of relapse.RESULT: The results of ANCOVA showed there were significant differences in pleasant emotion and testing control between the two groups on measures of self-efficacy. The results of McNemar test indicated level of relapse in the experimental group significantly declined from pre-test to post-test. Furthermore, using Chi-square analysis, a significant difference (with a moderate effect size) was found in the levels of relapse.CONCLUSION: The present study provides strong support for CBT group intervention as an effective treatment for Iranian male drug addicts. Therefore, CBT group intervention can be considered as a practical approach in the treatment of people with SUDs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".