Integration of Twelve Step with Evidence-Based Practices in a Residential Treatment Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Residential treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) typically involves both medical and psychological treatments to best meet the needs of service users. Common treatments include Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF) as well as evidence-based practices (EBPs) such as cognitive behavioral therapies and medications. Researchers have discussed the difficulties with implementation and sustainability of EBPs within treatment centers that predominantly use TSF. Objectives: Understanding the process of implementation is an important area of study to inform future implementation efforts. The present study involved a qualitative investigation of a residential treatment center that integrated EBPs alongside TSF. Treatment stakeholders (N=22) were interviewed about their experience with integration. Results: The results indicated that the organization’s evolution to integrate evidence-based practices (e.g., medication, evidenced-based psychotherapy) occurred through a process of themes including staff members’ personal allegiance to Twelve Step; tension among staff members; staff collaboration; and integration of theoretical orientations. The results parallel those found in the Normalization Process Theory of implementation. Conclusions: The present study provides an understanding as to how Twelve Step and EBPs can be integrated into a residential treatment center, allowing for service users to have choice in their care. The program’s ability to navigate the treatment evolution can be used as an example for integrating evidence-based practice with Twelve Step to meet the many needs of individuals seeking substance use treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".