MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474648607

Evaluation of an inpatient medical withdrawal program in rural Ontario: a 1-year prospective study.

2015· article· en· W2474648607 on OpenAlexaffabout
Niki Kiepek, Bobbi Groom, Debbie Toppozini, Kara Kakekagumick, Jill Muileboom, Len Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstinenceMedicineBuprenorphineFamily medicineSubstance usePsychiatryNursingOpioid
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We present a 1-year program evaluation of the Medical Withdrawal Support Service (MWSS) provided at the Sioux Lookout Meno Ya Win Health Centre. The centre's service area includes 4 rural municipalities and 28 First Nations communities. The program involves inpatient detoxification for opioid dependence with the use of buprenorphine-naloxone. METHODS: Data were collected from preadmission interviews (i.e., medical history, substance use history, previous counselling, social history, previous addiction treatment and screening tools used during the interview); discharge forms (i.e., length of stay, maximum dose of prescribed buprenorphine-naloxone and client goals); and postdischarge interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 81% of the clients successfully completed the program. Two weeks after discharge, 48% of clients reported continued abstinence. At 3-month follow-up, 32% were abstinent, and at 6 months, 30% were abstinent. CONCLUSION: The MWSS shows positive outcomes for many clients, their families and communities. Clients returned to work and school, became more engaged in healthy meal preparation and exercise, spent more time with family and were more involved as leaders in their communities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207