Evaluating the Effectiveness of Drama Therapy by Psychodrama Method on Psychological Well-Being and False Beliefs of Addicts—Case Study: Persian Gulf Addiction Treatment Center in the City of Bushehr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of psychodrama on psychological well-being and false beliefs of people with drug abuse referred to Persian Gulf residential center in the city of Bushehr. The methodology of this study was experimental with pretest-posttest design and following up with the control group. For the purpose, among the people referring to this center, 30 patients (15 as experimental group and 15 as control group) were randomly selected. Research tools included a psychological well-being questionnaire (1986) and irrational beliefs of Jones (1969). Psychodrama interventional program was presented as a group to the participants of the experimental group during twelve 90-minute sessions. Analysis of data covariance showed that the psychodrama, in the experimental group, has significantly increased psychological well-being of subjects in making positive relations with others, autonomy, self-acceptance, environmental mastery, personal growth and a purposeful life, and reduced irrational beliefs such as emotional irresponsibility, avoiding dealing with the problems, helplessness in the face of change and demand for approval from others.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".