Alcoholism: Beliefs and Attitudes among Canadian Alcoholism Treatment Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore differences in views concerning adjunctive medications and theoretical orientation among Canadian practitioners from different professional backgrounds who treat alcoholism. METHODS: A survey of clinicians from different disciplines was conducted by mail. The response rate was 56%: 95 drug and alcohol counsellors, 46 social workers, 81 nonpsychiatrist addiction physicians, and 74 addiction psychiatrists. The number of items in the questionnaire was reduced using principal component analysis. Group differences were explored using analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction and Scheffé's posthoc comparisons. RESULTS: Physicians and nonphysicians differed in their views on the utility of medications in treating alcohol problems, the disease concept of alcohol problems, and the classification of alcohol abuse or dependence as psychiatric conditions. No group differences emerged on views regarding cognitive-behavioural treatment, pharmacological-only interventions, combined treatment, and recovery without treatment. Psychopathology in the alcoholic was significantly more likely to be considered as secondary to the use of alcohol by nonpsychiatrist physicians. Nonphysician practitioners viewed alcoholic behaviour as self-medication. CONCLUSIONS: Groups differed on questionnaire items concerning medication use and the disease concept of alcoholism. Agreement on several areas may facilitate bridging the gap across disciplines. The implications of these results are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".