Guidelines for integrating spirituality into the prevention and treatment of alcohol and other substance use disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol and other substance use disorders are complex problems with multiple variables and determinants, requiring a multidimensional approach to prevention and treatment. A robust body of research shows that religiosity and spirituality (R/S) play a prominent role in these disorders; however, how to apply this knowledge remains unclear. We present practical guidelines on how to integrate R/S into substance use prevention and treatment in an ethical, evidence-based manner. These guidelines have been endorsed by prominent academic leaders in these topics and by health associations affiliated with the three major Brazilian religions. The integration of R/S is part of a respectful, person-centered, interdisciplinary approach, which imposes neither religious beliefs nor secular worldviews. The most critical interventions include collecting a history of spiritual and religious beliefs, practices, and experiences and evaluating how these may be used positively in treatment. It is also essential that health professionals are encouraged to value and respect the R/S of patients, and that religious groups recognize that professional and technical interventions can make a valuable contribution to preventing and treating these disorders.
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 | 0.035 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".