Family-focused practices in addictions: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Families are significantly impacted by addictions and family involvement in treatment can reduce the harms and can also improve treatment entry, treatment completion and treatment outcomes for the individual coping with an addiction. Although the benefits of family-focused practices in addictions have been documented, services continue to have an individual focus and research on this topic is also limited. The objective of this study is to map the extent, range and nature of evidence available examining family interventions in addictions and identify gaps to guide future research, policy and practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a scoping review using the five-stage framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will include published and unpublished empirical studies focusing on any type of family interventions in addiction treatment between 2000 and the present in English or French. A reviewer will search for literature that meets the inclusion criteria through the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Social Services Abstracts. For a comprehensive search, we will also hand-search reference lists, web sites and key journals. Data will be charted and sorted using a thematic analysis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will be the first to examine all forms of family-focused practices for both substance use and problem gambling treatment for adults. It will provide information about existing service provisions and gaps in practice. This review can be used to start moving towards the development of best practices for families in addiction treatment. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and at mental health and addiction conferences.
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 | 0.103 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.016 |
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".