How Companion Animals Support Recovery from Opioid Use Disorder: An Exploratory Study of Patients in a Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed increased attention to the benefits of companion animals on human health, though little attention has been paid to the potential to support recovery from a substance use disorder. Amidst an opioid crisis in Canada, studying this overlooked source of support may be beneficial. This study explores how companion animals support the recovery of seven methadone maintenance treatment patients in a Canadian core neighborhood. Through semi-structured interviews and a thematic analysis, the findings demonstrate that individuals’ companion animals support their recovery in four areas of their lives: (i) social, (ii) health and wellbeing, (iii) home, and (iv) purpose and empowerment. These themes were found to align with and expand upon the four dimensions of a Life in Recovery outlined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Structuring the paper by the expanded categories, this study introduces how companion animals fulfilled supportive roles that other humans could not or chose not to provide, while the human-animal bond encouraged a strengths-based approach to individuals’ recovery. This helped foster positive self-identity and a perceived choice over individuals’ recovery pathways.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".