Client characteristics and substance use patterns in different models of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) is an established form of substitution therapy for opioid use disorder. Various MMT treatment models have emerged but differences in the clients they service have not been examined extensively. The current study assessed client characteristics in three MMT treatment delivery models: (1) comprehensive programs which combine methadone treatment with mandatory physician appointments and counseling, (2) low-threshold-high- tolerance (LTHT) programs which have more lenient policies and offer primary healthcare services, and (3) fee-for-service methadone programs which are run by community pharmacies and where the dispensation of methadone is the core component.Methods: Seventy participants were recruited from five treatment sites in a midsized Atlantic Canadian city and grouped based on model of care: Comprehensive program (n = 21), LTHT program (n = 26), and fee-for-service program (n = 23). Self-report questionnaires were used to collect data on demographics and substance use patterns.Results: Results indicated that participants in the fee-for-service group reported higher levels of substance use severity and polysubstance use than participants in the comprehensive and LTHT groups.Conclusion: The findings of this research have important implications for the implementation of fee-for-service methadone programs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".