The role of personality functioning in drug misuse treatment engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Personality functioning is predictive of drug misuse and relapse, yet little is known about the role of personality in engagement with the treatment process. This study aimed to estimate the extent to which broad- and facet-level characteristic adaptations contribute to or hinder treatment engagement, while controlling for psychosocial indicators. DESIGN: Multi-site cross-sectional survey. SETTING: In-patient treatment units covering 80% of residential treatment entries in Greece. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 338 service users, 287 (84.9%) male, 51 (15.1%) female, average age 33.4 years. MEASUREMENTS: Expressions of personality functioning (characteristic adaptations) were assessed using the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118). Treatment engagement was measured using the Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment, in-patient version (CEST). FINDINGS: Dysfunctional levels of relational capacities predicted counselling rapport [β = 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.326-2.69, P = 0.013], treatment participation (β = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.15-3.11, P < 0.001) and treatment satisfaction (β = 1.65, 95% CI = 0.735-2.57, P < 0.001). Counselling rapport was also predicted by dysfunctional levels in self-control (β = 1.78, 95% CI = 0.899-2.67, P < 0.001), self-reflective functioning at the facet-level (β = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.01-3.46, P < 0.001) and aggression regulation (β = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.438-2.42, P = 0.005). Dysfunctional levels on social concordance (β = -1.90, 95% CI = -2.87 to -0.941, P = 0.001), emotional regulation (β = 1.90, 95% CI = 0.87-2.92, P < 0.001) and intimacy (β = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.31-3.05, P < 0.001) were significant predictors of treatment participation. Treatment readiness and desire for help predicted treatment engagement. CONCLUSIONS: In people attending substance use treatment services, maladaptive interpersonal patterns and relational intimacy, emotional dysregulation and impulse control may be associated with low levels of counselling rapport and treatment participation. Low frustration tolerance and aggressive impulses also appeared to predict low participation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".