MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945051299 · doi:10.1177/0840470419836266

Technology to support relational care for people who use drugs at home: Literature review and key informant content

2019· review· en· W2945051299 on OpenAlexaffabout
Izabela Szelest, Lori Motluk, Helen Jennens, Jeannine Lagassé, Martin Tailleur, Ginetta Salvalaggio

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOkanagan CollegeInterior HealthKelowna General HospitalAlberta HealthGovernment of Nova Scotia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarm reductionHarmSAFERService providerPsychological interventionNursingPublic relationsBusinessService (business)MedicineInternet privacyPsychologyPublic healthComputer securityMarketingPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's opioid crisis is a public health emergency that disproportionately affects people who use drugs alone at home, requiring the mobilization of health systems to implement timely, effective, and innovative programs. The purpose of this review is to provide a synthesis of recent literature relating to technology-enabled harm reduction strategies. The results of the literature review are corroborated with key informants, including family members of people who use drugs and policy-makers in the area of opioid use. Based on this, it is recommended that technology-enabled support programs for people who use drugs at home must deliver support at whatever point the person is along their drug use continuum, must transfer frontline relational skills, must be co-developed with community members and service providers, and must deliver predictable and reliable services that are safe from stigma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207