MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321781637 · doi:10.1186/s12954-023-00757-2

Motives for alcohol use, risky drinking patterns and harm reduction practices among people who experience homelessness and alcohol dependence in Montreal

2023· article· en· W4321781637 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rossio Motta-Ochoa, Natalia Incio-Serra, Alexandre Brulotte, Jorge Flores-Aranda

Bibliographic record

VenueHarm Reduction Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsHarm reductionBinge drinkingHarmHealth psychologyUnit of alcoholPsychological interventionPublic healthPsychologyAlcoholPoison controlSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthInjury preventionMental healthQualitative researchAlcohol intoxicationPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychologyAlcohol consumptionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are disproportionately affected by harms related to alcohol use. Indeed, their alcohol dependence is associated with numerous physical and mental health problems along with strikingly high rates of alcohol-related mortality. Recent research has extensively examined alcohol use patterns among people experiencing homelessness in an effort to develop interventions and treatments for this problem. However, only a few studies have incorporated the perspectives of the individuals under study about their drinking or examined the ways in which they manage the associated harms. To bridge this gap, we conducted a qualitative study exploring the relation between the drinking motives, risky drinking patterns and harm reduction practices of a group of people (n = 34) experiencing homelessness in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: The qualitative methods we used consisted of semi-structured interviews (n = 12) and focus groups (n = 2, with a total of 22 participants). The content of the collected data was then analyzed. RESULTS: Participants identified their various motives for alcohol use (coping with painful memories, dealing with harsh living conditions, socializing/seeking a sense of belonging, enjoying themselves/having fun); their risky drinking patterns (binge drinking, mixing alcohol with drugs, non-beverage alcohol drinking, failing to keep sufficient alcohol on hand to prevent acute withdrawal, drinking in public settings); their harm reduction practices (planning how much to drink, keeping a supply of alcohol to prevent acute withdrawal, hiding to drink, concealing alcohol, drinking alone, drinking/hanging out with others, drinking non-beverage alcohol, and taking benzodiazepines, cocaine or other stimulant drugs); and the rationales underpinning their alcohol use and harm reduction practices. CONCLUSION: Associating the drinking motives of a group of study participants with their risky drinking patterns and harm reduction practices shed light on their rationales for alcohol use, yielding insights that could be used to better tailor policies and interventions to their needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarm Reduction JournalSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207