Canadian illicit opiate users' views on methadone and other opiate prescription treatment: an exploratory qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although methadone treatment has been available in North America for decades, only a small proportion of opiate addicts (some 25% of estimated opiate users in Canada) are receiving methadone treatment. Many users have tried methadone treatment, often multiple times, but leave treatment prematurely. Others would not consider it as a worthwhile treatment option for themselves. This exploratory study examines regular opiate users' attitudes towards and experiences with methadone treatment in Canada, primarily setting out to determine what makes methadone an unsuccessful or even an undesirable treatment option for considerably large groups of opiate users. This empirical effort to explore the limitations of existing methadone treatment comes at an appropriate time, when alternative forms of opiate pharmacotherapy treatment are being proposed in Canada as complementary modes of intervention that hope to address the shortcomings of methadone treatment. The rationale for this study were feasibility questions and development efforts for a clinical trial in North America evaluating the effectiveness of using injectable opioids (heroin, dilaudid) in attracting and engaging treatment-resistant opiate users into treatment. Data for this exploratory qualitative study was collected in 1999 through a series of focus groups involving 47 treatment-experienced and treatment-naive opiate users in Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, with the objective of identifying key themes and issues on the described topic as a basis for further systematic research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".