Determining the Effects of Psychosocial and Spiritual Support Among Patients With Substance Abuse: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substance use disorder (SUD) has both social and public health problems with a substantial burden to society. SUD is a type of mental illness and has been described as a chronic relapsing disease. Treatments for SUD may include among others, psychosocial rehabilitation as a provision to comprehensive treatment to address the social and behavioral issues. These psychosocial components can address the issues of morality, spirituality, and religion. Religion and spirituality are believed to support SUD clients in the reduction of drug use, other associated high-risk behaviors, and criminal issues. In promoting treatment retention, it is important to reduce the drug use, maintain abstinence, and influence the self-esteem and coping ability of SUD clients. Hence, this review was conducted to determine the effects of psychosocial and spiritual support towards clients with substance abuse problem. We had followed the framework from Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review in identifying published studies from specific databases to be included in this review. A total of 8560 articles from various databases were screened. After removing duplicates, two authors independently screened 244 titles and abstracts. A total of eighteen articles were included in the final review. Out of eighteen studies, seventeen studies found that psychosocial support and spiritual needs have positive effect among substance abuse clients. Psychosocial and spiritual supports are beneficial among SUD clients due to various potential factors, such as religious reasons, personal beliefs or philosophical reasons, safety concerns, and a desire for improvements from substance abuse.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".