Addiction-specific Support Group Use, Personality Characteristics and Recovery Status in Substance Abusers, a Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a prospective, three-month follow-up study of 228 of mixed-substance, mixed-gender sample of substance-abusing clients who e n t e ~e d a private addiction rehabilitation hospital for residential treatment.The goal was to try and predict recovery status and use of addiction-specific supports (aftercare and 12-step programsl at the threemonth follow-up point, as half of al1 relapses occur within this time frame.The variables tested were psychological and social.Little is known about the psychological characteristics of those who maintain gains of treatment and of those who attend addiction-specific support groups following treatment.This study aimed at filling this void with useful and applicable findings .The psychological factors examined here were Aiexithymia (difficulty in identifying and verbally describing feelings) as measured by the revised Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); optimism, measured by the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R); and beliefs regarding the disease versus the freewill models of addictions, as measured by the Addiction Belief Scale ( A B S ; .The use of support groups was used both as a potential predictor (of recovery status) and as an outcome variable.Recovery status and the level of use of support groups were assessed rom data gathered at the three-month follow-up telephone interview.To assess recovery status, baseline information was compared to post-treatment level of substance use.Multiple sources of confirmation of clients' reports regarding post-treatment behaviour were used.The most striking finding of this study was the fact that al1 the clients who attended the aftercare program regularly or aftercare and f2- step groups combined, were in high recovery (abstinent or highly improved) during the first three months post treatment.Attendance in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups alone was also significantly associated with recovery status at three months.In addition, two of the three psychological variables (Alexithymia and Addiction Beliefs) were significantly associated with level of aftercare use.Additional analysis included an examination of demographic data as potential predictors of outcome and a gender analysis which was limited in scope by the small number of women in the study.An added outcome variable was the completion of the initial treatment program.The significant findings of al1 analyses are reported and discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 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".