An occupational justice perspective of people’s experiences while on Methadone Maintenance Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An occupational justice perspective of people’s experiences while on Methadone Maintenance Treatment\nPurpose\nA study was undertaken with people on Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) in London, Ontario. Given that MMT is time intensive, the objectives were to better understand the experiences and daily routines of people on MMT through in-depth exploration of their everyday occupations and the ongoing challenges and barriers they face to accessing treatment.\nMethods\nWe used a qualitative intrinsic case study methodology (Stake, 1995) informed by the framework for occupational justice (Stadnyk et al., 2010; Townsend, 2012).\nParticipants: Three females and two males between the ages of 27 and 42 who had been on MMT for at least one year.\nData collection: Two sessions were conducted with each participant. The first consisted of a semi-structured interview, the creation of an occupational map (Huot & Laliberte Rudman, 2015) and completion of a demographic questionnaire. The second entailed a follow-up interview.\nData analysis: Data analysis entailed whole text analysis and line-by-line coding of the ten transcripts. The analysis of the visual data generated through mapping also informed the findings.\nResults\nFour themes highlighting key aspects of the participants' experiences will be presented. First, findings outline a ‘descent into chaos’ as participants’ addictions began and worsened over time. Second, participants’ experiences of ‘MMT as a bridge’ to recovery from addiction are described. Third, a ‘new normal’ daily life that is characterized by liminality is shown to be linked to people’s experiences on MMT. Finally, participants’ hopes for ‘moving forward’ are outlined. These themes in the data suggest that participants do not follow a strictly linear route but generally shift from chaos to boredom with the ever present possibility of relapse.\nImplications for occupational science\nIn relation to the framework for occupational justice, the findings illustrate how structural factors such as health and community supports, and income supports as well as contextual factors including income/wealth, employment status, homelessness, and family/friend support interact to create occupational outcomes contributed to the participants’ experiences of occupational imbalance and occupational marginalization. MMT is not strictly an 'individual' experience, rather it is shaped by broader factors, which leads people in treatment to experience particular occupational injustices. Thus, MMT practices and policies should consider the occupational implications to enhance clients’ experiences and further support their recovery.\nDiscussion questions \nHow might comparative research help further illuminate the challenges faced by MMT clients? (e.g. urban/rural) \nHow could MMT policies and practices be adapted to reflect the occupational implications discussed and to enhance clients' experiences? \nHow might other occupational science concepts be used to conduct additional research with people on MMT?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".