Barriers and Facilitators in Utilizing Treatment Services for Substance Use Problems Among Youth in Ontario, Canada : A qualitative study from youth service providers’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problematic substance use is a continuing public health and safety concern in Canada, as is in many countries, and is seen as a health issue that can be prevented, managed, and treated through a proper focused response; however, according to recent studies and reports, Canadian youth are experiencing massive difficulty in accessing evidence-based services. The aim of this study is to explore youths’ barriers and facilitators in seeking and utilizing treatment services for substance use problems from service care providers’ perspectives in Ontario, Canada. In addition, treatment models that are organized to fit the needs of youth are also explored. A qualitative study with an inductive approach was used. Data was collected through six semi-structured interviews with youth service professionals working in school or community-based problematic substance use organizations in Ontario, Canada. The obtained data material has been analyzed by thematic analysis. The results showed that professionals viewed harm reduction and motivational interviewing models as designs fitted for youth. Professionals viewed unclear pathways to available services and stigma as external barriers to seeking treatment and shame and guilt and the loss of autonomy as internal barriers. Results viewed open conversation and active participation by schools as facilitators for seeking treatment. Further, professionals viewed insensitivity on behalf of the staff and funding as the main barriers for youth utilizing treatment, while sympathy from staff a major facilitator. This conclusion highlights the need for more open conversation and cooperation with the government and other youth service care professionals to coordinate effective and integrated services available for youth in school and community 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".