Who participates in collegiate recovery programs? A survey of students in the US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To characterize the demographics, recovery pathways, and support needs of students enrolled in Collegiate Recovery Programs (CRPs) across the U.S. and Canada. Participants: 246 students from 77 institutions who were currently enrolled in CRPs during the 2023–2024 academic year. Methods: Students completed an online survey assessing demographics, recovery history, mental health diagnoses, academic status, and use of on- and off-campus recovery supports. Results: Only 54.1% reported prior formal SUD treatment. Nearly half of participants identified as LGBTQIA+, and one-third reported justice system involvement. Most had co-occurring mental health conditions, particularly depression (79.3%) and anxiety (76.8%). Recovery pathways included 12-step programs (57.3%), counseling (53.3%), CRP only (47.6%), and harm reduction (22.0%). Conclusions: CRP participants reflect a diverse population with complex and evolving needs. Findings underscore the importance of inclusive, flexible recovery supports and highlight CRPs’ role in advancing health equity and reducing stigma in college settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".