Experiences of Clients in Three Types of Methadone Maintenance Therapy in an Atlantic Canadian City: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methadone maintenance therapy remains the most common form of substitution therapy for opioid use disorder in Canada. Effectiveness of methadone maintenance therapy has been established, but recently newer treatment delivery models have emerged. Differences across these treatment models have not been examined. PURPOSE: This descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to assess client experiences in three methadone maintenance therapy treatment delivery models: (a) comprehensive programs, (b) low-threshold/high-tolerance programs, and (c) fee-for-service programs. METHODS: = 12). Content analysis was performed on interview data to assess the frequency of relevant themes in the data. RESULTS: Participants from all groups stressed the importance of supportive staff and having access to some form of counselling. However, low-threshold/high-tolerance and fee-for-service clients voiced a need for more formal counselling and programming at their clinics. Methadone was reported as the most helpful aspect of the methadone maintenance therapy programs; however, participants also expressed negative views about the substance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for the development and implementation of methadone maintenance therapy, specifically pertaining to further integration of addiction and mental health services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".