Career development in recovery from problematic substance use : a randomized controlled trial of a hope-action theory group program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence that for individuals with a history of problematic substance use (PSU), employment and career development are areas that can be negatively impacted by PSU (Eddie et al., 2020; Laudet & Hill, 2015; Magura & Marshall, 2020). Conversely, positive work experiences appear important to successful recovery (Best et al., 2010; Laudet & White, 2010; Veseth et al., 2022). Studies suggest that career interventions could support individuals returning to work after treatment (Magura & Marshall, 2020), but little research has compared the effectiveness of different career interventions for this population (M. Kim et al., 2022; Magura & Marshall, 2020). This dissertation assessed the effectiveness of two eight-session career counselling group programs for individuals with a history of PSU: one based on Hope-Action Theory (HAT; Amundson et al., 2020), and a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison program, Standard Employment Skills (SES). Participants from British Columbia and Alberta, Canada were randomly assigned to either HAT or SES and completed employment- and career-related assessments before (N = 162) and after the programs (N = 86). Hierarchical logistic regression, mixed-effects repeated measures ANOVA and MANOVA, and the non-parametric Friedman test were used to assess group differences. Compared to SES, HAT participants had statistically significant greater odds of starting educational or vocational programs (OR = 0.26; small effect) and greater improvements in job search clarity (ηp2 = 0.06; small effect), work engagement (ηp2 = 0.12; small effect), career optimism (ηp2 = 0.05; small effect), and career hope (W = 0.27; medium effect). Across both programs, participants showed significant improvements in job search clarity, work engagement, career adaptability, career optimism, career hope, and hope-action competencies. No changes were observed in employment status or employment-seeking behaviours, job satisfaction, task performance, or turnover intention for participants across both programs. These results suggest that for individuals with a history of PSU, hope-based career interventions may improve odds of starting educational programs and some career-related cognitions at greater rates than standard employment skills interventions in the short-term.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".