Changes in Work Status, Couple Adjustment, and Recovery Capital: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Congruence Couple Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Employment and family/social relationships are 2 of the highest priorities among those in substance use recovery. This study examined the relationship of work status with couple adjustment and other recovery capital treatment outcomes among symptomatic alcohol, substance use, and gambling participants ( N = 38) using data collected in a randomized trial comparing a systemic Congruence Couple Therapy (CCT) and individual-based Treatment-as-Usual (TAU). Method: Change scores and associations between work status and couple adjustment together with 8 other recovery outcome variables at post-treatment (5 months from baseline) and follow-up (8 months from baseline) in TAU ( n = 17) and CCT ( n = 21) were analyzed. Results: Number of those working increased with both CCT and TAU but without reaching significance in either CCT (Cochran’s Q = 5.429, P = .066) or TAU (Cochran’s Q = 2.800, P = .247). Relative to those not working in the combined sample, those working showed significantly improved scores in post-treatment and follow-up in addictive symptoms, couple adjustment, psychiatric symptoms, depression, and life stress. Separating the CCT and TAU groups, similar trend was found in the CCT group but was inconsistent in the TAU group. Conclusion: Significantly greater improvement in addictive symptoms and recovery capital of couple adjustment, mental health, and life stress was found in the working vs not-working group. Compared to individual-based TAU, exploratory findings indicate that the systemic treatment of CCT showed a clearer and more consistent difference in improved working days, addictive symptoms and recovery capital. Replication with larger samples is needed to generalize these results.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".