Evaluation of the quality of life (Whoqol-Bref) among methadone and suboxone substitution state program patients and healthy volunteers in Georgia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: to evaluate QOL patients being treated with methadone and Suboxone in State-sponsored programs in Georgia. The WHOQOL-BREF (26 questions) version was administered to patients in State substitution program and healthy volunteers to assess their overall function and life satisfaction in physical, mental, social health, and environment domains. Domain scores were calculated and converted to 4-20 and 0-100 scales, identical to the WHOQOL-100. 485 patients (309 from 6 Tbilisi and 176 from 5 regional centers) and 50 healthy volunteers (13 male, 37 female) were surveyed. Significant differences were observed between new admitted patients (0-3 month) and healthy controls by mean physical (47.5 vs. 51.94; CI 95%); psychological (55.0 vs. 60.50; CI 95%) and environmental (46.2 vs. 52.2; CI 95%) domains, but not by social relationships or between Tbilisi and regions. The Social domain scores were raised in accordance with time spent in treatment reaching a maximum improvement within 1-3 years (social- 72.8 vs. 67.7; CI 95%), further with few descending tends round the healthy people's scores. These pilot data show decrements in QOL among patients entering maintenance treatment with improvements in the course of maintenance treatment. It is possible that the increased indicators in social domain up to especially high level within the first 3 years is the result of subjective factors, with the subsequent return to healthy community level.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".