Understanding the Factors that Impact Relapse Post-residential Addiction Treatment, a Six Month Follow-up from a Canadian Treatment Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although substance use disorder is a detrimental disease that negatively affects millions of Canadians each year, recovery is possible. Varying factors, however, may impact the likelihood of recovery after the affected individual completes treatment. Understanding the related factors associated with post-treatment outcomes would allow substance use disorder professionals to foster positive outcomes, and if appropriate, provide additional support for individuals in need. This study, therefore, examines the following factors on outcomes six months following discharge from residential substance use disorder treatment: length of stay, completion of treatment, post-treatment 12-Step and other mutual help group attendance, post-treatment drug monitoring, age, gender, and drug of concern. Being male, post-treatment 12-Step and other mutual help group attendance, post-treatment drug monitoring, and treatment completion were found to be significantly related to abstinence at six months following residential treatment. The influence of length of stay in treatment, age, and drug of concern on relapse was found to be insignificant. Utilizing the findings of this study can assist healthcare professionals in promoting recovery for patients with substance use disorder.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".