Effectiveness of Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) on Quality of Life and Depression in Families with Drug Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug abuse as a biological, psychological, and social problem affect all life aspects including quality of life and cause socio-psychological problems. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of community reinforcement and family training (CRAFT) Method on quality of life and depression in family members of substance abusers. This was a quasi-experimental study with control group in which the pre-test and post-test were used. In the present study, two experimental groups (CRAFT and Nar-Anon) and a control group were used using the purposive sampling selected from the family members of substance abusers who referred to the methadone treatment clinic in Tehran. Each of groups consisted of 25 people. CRAFT groups were trained in 12 sessions of intervention techniques. Nar-Anon groups participated in self-help sessions and control did not receive any training. All three groups completed the BDI-II Test and WHO Quality of Life-BREF questionnaire and the results were analyzed using SPSS-16. The results of two intervention methods compared with the control group showed no significant effect in reducing depression. CRAFT and Nar-Anon interventions were not effective in reducing the depression of family members of drug abuse patients but both were effective in promoted the quality of their life compared with control group.
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 | 0.000 | 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".