Understanding the patient and supporter journey in cocaine use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a paucity of literature describing experiences and journey of individuals with cocaine use disorder (CUD) and supporters who care for them. The aim of this study was to understand and document the journey of individuals with current CUD, those in CUD remission, and supporters. Methods: The online bulletin board (OBB) is a qualitative tool where participants engage in an interactive discussion on a virtual forum. After completing a 15-minute screening questionnaire determining eligibility, individuals in CUD remission and supporters participated in an OBB for 60 minutes, split across 8 days over 2 weeks. Individuals with current CUD participated in a one-time virtual focus group discussion for 90 minutes. Results: Individuals in CUD remission (n=35) were from Brazil, France, Spain, the UK, and the US; those with current CUD (n=5) and supporters (n=6) were from the US. Key insights were that individuals with current CUD were seeking a 'euphoric high' that cocaine provides. Those in CUD remission described a 'euphoric high' when they first tried cocaine, but over time it became harder to re-create this feeling. Individuals in CUD remission expressed a 'rollercoaster' of emotions from when they first started using cocaine to when they stopped. Supporters were sad, isolated, and worried about a potential cocaine overdose for their loved ones with CUD. Conclusion: The study provides valuable insights into the experiences and journey of individuals with CUD and their supporters. Data generated from this study gives insights into this under-served and growing population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".