MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4297904408 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034604/v1

Evaluating Patient Satisfaction and Qualitative Outcomes during an Abstinence-Based Indigenous Residential Treatment Program in Northern Ontario

2022· preprint· en· W4297904408 on OpenAlexaffabout
Teresa Naseba Marsh, C. Eshakakogan, Joseph K. Eibl, Melissa Spence, Kristen A. Morin, Patrick Oghene, Aidan Goertzen, Farah Tahsin, Graham Gauthier, Chief Dean Sayers, Chief Alan Ozawanimke, Chief Brent Bissaillion, David C. Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAbstinenceMedicineIntervention (counseling)MainstreamFamily medicinePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Indigenous peoples with substance use disorders (SUD) and intergenerational trauma (IGT) have a variety of needs across the range of symptom severity and the challenging dual disorder (1). To address these needs, a continuum of holistic care that includes intensive treatment services and support must be in place (2–4). In collaboration with the North Shore Tribal Council and Benbowopka Treatment Center in Ontario, Canada, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Abstinence-Based treatment model in place prior to implementing a novel treatment approach based on blending Indigenous healing practices and a mainstream treatment model, ‘Seeking Safety,’ for the treatment of Indigenous patients with a history of IGT and SUD in a four-week residential treatment program in Blind River, Northern Ontario. This paper is a retrospective qualitative analysis of an Indigenous community-run residential treatment program operating under an abstinence-based model prior to implementing a novel treatment paradigm based in Indigenous teachings and Seeking Safety. Methods: The historical data was collected from Benbowopka’s patient records; (n = 343) from January 2013 to March 2016 (end of the 2015 fiscal year). The data has been divided into the fiscal year and intake period at the request of Benbowopka. We evaluated the results of the abstinence-based model intervention against three distinct primary outcomes (1. The patient perspective, 2. The program perspective, and 3. The community perspective). The following variables were collected: name, health card number, date of birth, postal code, status card number, gender, date of admission to the program, date of discharge, program completion (Y/N), Indigenous (Y/N), status First Nation (Y/N), on reserve (Y/N), primary substance, and secondary substance(s). Any pertinent notes were also included in the data. All discussions and feedback from the Client Quality Assurance Survey tool was subjected to a qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Four core themes were identified: (1) Motivation to attend treatment; (2) Understanding Benbowopka’s treatment program and needs to be met; (3) Satisfaction with all interventions; and (4) Moving forward. We thus utilized a proposed conceptualized descriptive framework for the four core themes depicted in the medicine wheel. The center of the medicine wheel represented headings (self, family, children, worker, and community) or a lens, which participants used to frame their experiences. Conclusion: This research has identified that SUD Indigenous residential treatment programs need to include culture, healing practices, activities and relationships that are part of the treatment process. This study found that the cultural elements and healing practices of the program were highly valued by clients in the Blind River, Northern Ontario, Northern Indigenous residential treatment program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→