Non Violent Resistance parent training and adolescent substance misuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent substance misuse is increasingly being viewed as a systemic problem and several studies have shown the benefit of increased parental involvement. This article describes the evaluation of a ten‐week Non‐Violent Resistance (NVR) group parent training programme delivered within a Young People’s Specialist Substance Misuse Treatment Service. Eighteen participants completed questionnaires before and after the programme, and at follow‐up. Eight participants also took part in semi‐structured interviews. Parents reported experiencing the programme as unique and helpful, and highlighted some challenges. Measures of parental self‐efficacy and goal‐based outcomes showed significant improvement at the end of the programme, and improvement in parental self‐efficacy remained significant at follow‐up. This evaluation provides preliminary evidence that NVR parent training may be a useful intervention in this context. However, the generalisability of the data is limited and further research is needed. Practitioner points Non‐Violent Resistance parent training helps parents resist their child’s behaviour, manage their own emotional reactions, and recruit supporters from their wider network Qualitative data suggests that parents who have attended this programme experience additional benefits to those found in qualitative evaluations of other parenting interventions A group training programme delivered within a Young People’s Specialist Substance Misuse Treatment Service improves parents’ self‐efficacy and helps them achieve their goals for their children
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".