Black Family Members’ Experiences and Interpretations of Supportive Resources for Them and Their Relatives With Substance Use Disorders: A Focused Ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While previous research explored the utilization of culturally supportive resources in multiethnic communities, there is a paucity of information regarding culturally relevant resources for Black Canadian family members. The study explored Black family members’ experiences and interpretations regarding access to culturally supportive resources for family members and their relatives who suffer from substance use disorders. Black family members are defined as African Canadians, Caribbean Canadians, or Caribbean Blacks. A focused ethnography was conducted with a purposive sample of 26 Black family members in Ontario, Canada. The interviews were conducted from June to September 2021. Seventeen participants originated from parts of Africa, and nine were from different parts of the Caribbean. The participants comprised mothers ( n = 5), fathers ( n = 2), step-fathers ( n = 1), husbands ( n = 1), wives ( n = 2), uncles ( n = 5), aunties ( n = 2), siblings ( n = 5), in-laws ( n = 2), and guardians ( n = 1). Leininger’s four Phases of Ethnonursing Qualitative Data Analysis were used for data analysis. Three themes were generated: (1) Navigating Existing Options and Resources for Families and Their Relatives; (2) Drawing upon Religion and Spirituality as Perceived Resources; and (3) Call for Culturally Relevant Programs for Substance Use Disorders Harm Reduction. Participants described experiencing a lack of culturally relevant resources and subsequently opting to navigate other resources. One such option was to send their relatives back to their country of origin to access cultural rehabilitation treatment options. There is a significant need for guidelines and policies regarding creating timely access to culturally relevant resources in Canada that support families and their relatives towards harm reduction and recovery outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".