Supporting Intrapersonal Development in Substance Use Disorder Programs: A Conceptual Framework for Client Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Improvements to intrapersonal development of clients involved with substance use disorder treatment programs has widely been recognized as contributing to the intended goal of reducing substance misuse behaviors. This study sought to identify a broad framework of primary outcomes related to the intrapersonal development of clients in treatment for substance misuse. METHOD: Using qualitative research methods, individual interviews were conducted with program participants (n = 41) at three treatment programs to identify the ways in which respondents experienced intrapersonal development through participation in treatment. RESULTS: The findings support the development of a conceptual model that captures the importance and manifestation of achieving improvements in the following outcomes: self-awareness, coping ability, self-worth, outlook, and self-determination. DISCUSSION: The findings provide a conceptual framework for client assessment that captures a broad range of the important intrapersonal development factors utilized as indicators for client development and recovery that should be measured in tandem during assessment.
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 | 0.043 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".