A pilot study of the Moving On In My Recovery program for people in recovery from substance use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study pilot tested Moving On In My Recovery (MOIMR), a 12-session, acceptance-based, cognitive-behavioral, manual-guided group program for individuals in recovery from substance use. MOIMR aims to bridge the gap between formal treatment and sustained recovery. Method: Participants were 61 people in recovery from substance use and in the catchment area of the Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board, North Wales, United Kingdom. Using a variety of questionnaires, participants’ psychological flexibility and wellbeing were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and a three-month follow-up. Participants who dropped out were contacted at the follow-up and interviewed about their experience. Results: The study successfully recruited participants from real-world treatment services. During the study, significant improvements were observed in participants’ social functioning, experiential avoidance, recovery capital, low mood, and anxiety. The proportion of participants who achieved abstinence also improved. Qualitative feedback confirmed the benefits that participants derived from attending the MOIMR groups. Conclusion: The program offered significant benefits for the participants despite many of them having apprehensions about undertaking a group-based approach. The gains established by quantitative analysis appeared to be supported by the qualitative findings. These findings suggest that a full randomized controlled trial of MOIMR would be feasible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".