Being heard, restoring a social connection and decreasing anger: Adult patients’ perceptions of clinical services addressing violent extremism in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing social polarization and ideological radicalization contribute to an increased risk of violence, particularly among vulnerable individuals experiencing despair and marginalization. Understanding the subjective experiences of individuals involved in violent extremism (VE) can inform the development of effective clinical and social interventions that promote disengagement and reintegration. Despite increasing efforts to address VE through tertiary prevention programs, little research has examined how individuals perceive these interventions and their impact on well-being and social reintegration. This qualitative study explores the perspectives of individuals receiving VE prevention services in Montreal, Canada. Using a phenomenological framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 participants (17 men and 1 woman; ages 17-72, mean = 32) referred by a specialized clinical team. Participation was voluntary, with confidentiality safeguards. Interviews were conducted in English or French, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using an inductive coding approach. Three key themes emerged. (1) Being Heard – Participants highlighted the therapeutic alliance, emphasizing the importance of being listened to without judgment and feeling respected by clinicians. (2) Restoring Social Connection – Engagement in services helped individuals re-establish social ties, navigate interpersonal conflicts, and reduce isolation. (3) Emotional Regulation and Decreased Anger – Participants reported improved emotional control, reduced distress, and a shift away from violent impulses. While some retained ideological beliefs, they no longer viewed violence as a viable option. The findings highlight the role of clinical interventions in addressing social marginalization and distress among individuals at risk of VE. A trauma-informed, non-judgmental, and relationship-based approach appears central to fostering trust, reducing distress, and supporting disengagement. These results highlight the need for interdisciplinary models that integrate mental health, social services, and policy interventions to prevent violence and reintegrate individuals into society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".