Coercion into addiction treatment and subsequent substance use patterns among people who use illicit drugs in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many people who use drugs (PWUD) are coerced into receiving treatment. This study aimed to assess changes in substance use and related outcomes before versus after treatment in people coerced into treatment, voluntarily attending treatment or not attending treatment. DESIGN: Data from three linked prospective cohort studies of PWUD were used. McNemar's test and non-linear growth curve modeling were employed to: (a) assess changes in substance use patterns before and after coerced addiction treatment and (b) compare these changes with changes in PWUD who (1) voluntarily accessed and (2) did not access treatment. SETTING: Vancouver, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3196 community-recruited PWUD. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome variables were substance use and related outcomes assessed by self-reported questionnaire. The input variable was self-reported coerced addiction treatment (defined as being forced into addiction treatment by a doctor or the criminal justice system), voluntary treatment versus no treatment. FINDINGS: Between September 2005 and June 2015, 399 (12.5%) participants reported being coerced into addiction treatment. In McNemar's test, there were no statistically significant reductions in within-group substance use outcomes for people coerced into treatment, voluntarily attending treatment or not attending treatment. In non-linear growth curve analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the before and after substance use patterns between those coerced into treatment versus either of the two control groups (all P > 0.05). In subanalyses, we found no statistically significant differences in substance use patterns between people who reported formal coerced treatment through the criminal justice system and people who reported informal coerced treatment through a physician. CONCLUSIONS: Among PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, there appear to be no statistically significant improvements in substance use outcomes among those reporting coerced addiction treatment, those voluntarily accessing treatment, and those not attending treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".