Exploring Intersecting Program Elements in Longer-Term Concurrent Disorder Services for Adults: A Qualitative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research highlights multiple factors that impact the attainment of client-identified recovery goals in substance misuse treatment programs. However, fewer studies examine how programs meet the broad range of needs expressed by clients through their intersecting elements of service delivery. This study seeks to develop an understanding of intersecting program and recovery elements in relation to an overall framework for programming, focusing on how overlapping elements of treatment ventured to support clients in multiple areas of their recovery. Qualitative interviews were conducted with clients (n=41) in three longer term substance use treatment programs, and data from interviews were analysed using analytic induction and constant comparison strategies to surface emergent themes. Data analysis yielded six main findings. These included: Education; Goal Setting; Routine and Stability; Spiritual Development; Exercise; and Transitional Planning. Respondents indicated that programs must focus on bolstering the development of each element across multiple treatment domains (such as group therapy and counselling) to best support clients in achieving recovery outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".