MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560304114 · doi:10.1177/1049732316679372

Initiation of Addiction Treatment and Access to Services: Young Adults’ Accounts of Their Help-Seeking Experiences

2016· article· en· W2560304114 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent Wagner, Karine Bertrand, Jorge Flores-Aranda, Didier Acier, Natacha Brunelle, Michel Landry, Serge Brochu

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsAddictionPsychologyHelp-seekingQualitative researchPsychiatryMental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substance addiction in young adults is particularly problematic. Yet, much remain at stake in understanding the specifics of this population's access to services. The objective of this study is to explore young adults' initiation of substance misuse treatment. Our study sample was composed of 35 individuals aged 18 to 30 with problematic psychoactive substance use who have been identified in criminal courts, hospital emergency departments, and Health and Social Services Centers in Québec (Canada). A thematic analysis was performed on the 62 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants. Three components emerged. First, personal elements-expectations, individual motivations, perceptions of use, and capacity to control it-influence initiation of substance misuse treatment. Second, family and peers have noticeable influences. Finally, system characteristics and prior care experiences also shape the process. Consideration should be given to tailor interventions that can reach young adults and encourage them to initiate appropriate care.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207