Masculinity and addiction: a narrative review of therapeutic interventions for men with substance-use disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite men representing the lion's share of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clients, the detrimental influence of traditional masculinity is rarely addressed in SUD treatment.The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the specific approaches applied in therapeutic work with men and their masculinities in SUD treatment programmes.Material and methods: A narrative scientific literature review was conducted on the topic of masculinity and its relations with SUD.Two main therapeutic programme models were identified, the first based on traditional understandings of masculinity and the second taking into Streszczenie Wprowadzenie: Pomimo że mężczyźni stanowią przeważającą część pacjentów lecznictwa uzależnień, szkodliwy wpływ wzorców zachowania związanych z tradycyjną męskością na proces terapeutyczny jest rzadko przedmiotem uwagi terapeutów.Celem niniejszego przeglądu jest prezentacja konkretnych podejść stosowanych w pracy terapeutycznej z mężczyznami i ich męskością w lecznictwie uzależnień.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".