Coping strategies and support structures of addiction affected families: A qualitative study from Goa, India.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the large burden of a relative's drinking on their family members, the latter's perspectives and experiences are largely neglected. The aims of this article are to assess the coping strategies used by affected family members (AFMs) in Goa, India, and to examine the nature of the support they have for dealing with their drinking relative. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with adult AFMs selected through purposive and maximum variation sampling. Data was analyzed using thematic analyses. RESULTS: The commonly used coping strategies included accommodating to the relative's behavior, financially adapting to their means, self-harm, attempting to reason with the drinking relative, covert intervening, and avoiding fights and arguments. There was a general reluctance to seek support, and the type and quality of support that was available was also limited. Support from neighbors or relatives was primarily through providing a "listening ear" or financial support. Religious and spiritual pursuits were commonly used to seek solace, and to manage negative thoughts and feelings. Formal support was sought for themselves or the relative through existing health services and Al-Anon, and occasionally from the police. DISCUSSION: AFMs experience a considerable amount of strain in relation to their relative's drinking, and have to rely on different ways of coping and social support, as is available to them. Although there is a universality to the experiences of families affected by addictions, this must be interpreted with caution, as it is also accompanied by variations in cultural factors related to these experiences. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".