The Need to Move from Describing to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Indigenous Drug and Alcohol Residential Rehabilitation Services: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the importance of Indigenous drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation, the knowledge supporting these services is limited. This paper aims to: (i) identify the research output related to Indigenous drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation services; (ii) classify identified studies according to their methodology; and (iii) describe key characteristics of clients and services, and critique the research methods. METHODS: A PRISMA compliant search of 10 electronic databases for studies of Indigenous drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation services from Australia, United States, Canada and New Zealand, published between 1 January 2000 and 28 March 2016, was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 38 relevant studies, 20 were service descriptions, one was a thesis, 16 described treatment or client characteristics and one was a pre/post evaluation. No systematic reviews or the development or evaluation of measures was identified, with reviewed studies found to be of relatively low methodological quality. CONCLUSION: There are few published studies on Indigenous drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation services, an average of one paper per annum internationally, and only one treatment outcome evaluation. Three key features of the reviewed papers included (i) studied services were mostly located in regional areas; (ii) services provided multi-component programs, with little alignment between the models of care of other services; and (iii) the majority used qualitative, rather than quantitative methods. Client outcomes will likely improve if future research can establish best-practice, culturally acceptable models of care and increase the application of evidence-based, culturally validated quantitative evaluation measures to complement existing qualitative research.
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 | 0.182 | 0.451 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".