Talk:Drug rehabilitation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NupurG.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Courtneymfoster.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khiggin1. Peer reviewers: Angb2015, Sok18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeffho1, Kmarie14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rehab[edit]

there should be some sort of history of rehab on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.24.251 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be consolidated with Substance-abuse rehabilitation. - Eisnel 03:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That page now points to this one.

Recidivism Rates[edit]

Does anybody have any info on the recidivism rates? I hear they're very high.

Yeah, 83% for first timers, slightly higher for second timers and significantly less for three timers. Tcennis 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to use a colon when replying, otherwise it will turn up as a quote and wrap. Zuiram 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recidivism rates probably depend a lot on the program in question, and trying to predict the likelyhood of any given person from such a coarse statistic is meaningless at best and counterproductive at worst. Motivation, life situation, long-term changes to brain chemistry, and any number of different factors come into play. Zuiram 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link is a bad thing?[edit]

I have been trying to add a link to this subject, but it has been removed several times and I have been told that it doesnt meet wikipedia's guidelines. I didnt see any guidelines that I broke. I dont own the site, am not trying to promote the site I am wishing to add. I am only suggesting it be added because it if I hadn't found it, I probably wouldnt be here today. I am just trying to help. Its the news articles which seem kinda pointless to me.

Thanks, Tcennis 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Links[edit]

The listing 'California Department of Rehabilitation' is geared for individuals with disabilities and not drug rehabilitation. I am removing this listing and adding the link for aboutrecovery.com that contains information geared specifically toward drug rehab that was written and is sponsored by a 501.3c non-profit organization.

-- Tcennis 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a continuing revert war going on about the www.aboutrecovery.com site Comprehensive Drug Rehab Resources. Could people express their views on whether it's a worthwhile organisation to be linked to? Nunquam Dormio 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I continue to add this link because A. It was a lifesaver for us and B. Contrary to any site linked on here, a person can go to it and actually get help without having to do a lot of research. And I find it much more valid than even the article on heroin. Tcennis 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links that point to an entity that benefits monetarily (think: advertising) is against guidelines. Yes, even for non-profits that generate revenue through such "advertising." Also, think about the point-of-view consequences... I am sure thousands of legitimate rehabs have at least one program graduate that can say that it was a "lifesaver" so should we have 9,000 links on this encyclopedia entry, just to be fair? That would be non-productive. 67.166.9.1 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will like to find a rehabilitation center in monroe city[edit]

hello i have a friend that her husband nides help. i do whant to help her because she has 2 kides with him. i will apritiat if you ware to help me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.158.40 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WP is not the forum for this, but mail me from my userpage if you like, and I'll see if I can find some suitable resource for you. Zuiram 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv pensacola spam[edit]

Someone added a spam to the end of the page, that I yanked. Had to save twice for the change to show up, however, so if someone could check that it stays that way, that'd be nice. I do not have this page watchlisted. Zuiram 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Where is criticism? 67.40.37.41 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab is a phoney money making scam. The rehab model is based on the prison model and forced 12 step witchcraft religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.138.30 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here specifically to read criticism of drug rehabilitation and was disappointed it wasn't there. I lack the knowledge to competently add such a section, but I hope someone rises to the challenge. 75.0.14.196 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any criticism of the 12-Step Religion gets deleted. Witchcraft & Sorcery Cults are like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.134.207 (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the 12-step program, while indeed helpful for many individuals, shouldn't be part of rehab programs addicted individuals have to pay for. Furthermore, many of the recovery programs offered in the US are indeed very expensive, and the presented material is often hard to digest for intelligent or educated people. Of course, whatever helps can be regarded as helpful, and the 12 step program is certainly not connected to witchcraft. What should happen however, particularly in American drug rehab programs, that more in depth psychological counseling is included. I basically don't have anything against certified drug abuse counselors, but there too, often the problems that are addressed by those are heavily based on the 12 step AA or NA system, which is public and not suitable for everyone since it cannot address individual needs. Particularly the approach to declare a "higher power" as a sort of guidance and central dogma of recovery is problematic and this approach is usually not part of drug rehab styles offered on the European continent. Again, recovery programs in the US should become smarter and more geared towards the individual. Medical and psychoanalytical approaches facilitated by trained psychologist and psychiatrists should be used more frequently since not everyone can be cured with a 12 step anonymous gathering. In my opinion it is very important to include meditation techniques and behavioral and cognitive methods. I also believe that social workers should play a bigger role in long term drug rehab especially for such individuals who became drop-outs and jobless due to their long term drug use. But again, to claim that 12step programs have anything to do with witchcraft or superstition is taking the critique to far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.153.17 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Per WP:BLP, I have just removed the entire "Celebrities in Rehab" section as unsourced. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

I deleted a few of the more onerous unreferenced statements throughout the article. Desoto10 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aversion to Reversion[edit]

I had thought this respected media documentary to be relevant to the article.

However, User:Coffeepusher, without discussion, reverted it out under WP:EL. I still think it deserves merit. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its placement alone under a subsection provides undue weight of a non-notable documentary (that has not produced any secondary sources).Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say "non-notable"?? Both the program and the media network which produced it had their own respectable Wikipedia articles already. "Non-notable"? I disagree. Is your insertion of an unrecognised "sober.org" whose veracity and credentials are unknown -- is that action and content notable? I should think not necessarily. Take care. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk)
um...sober.org, you are on the wrong page bro. again, that radio program originally aired in 2006, your link was to a rebroadcast. while the show itself is notable in radio circles, the content of that actual program (which is what is under discussion) has failed to produce any secondary sources or been cited in the 3 years that it has existed.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, although I read your points. The documentary is -- as you queried "why is this link so important to you?" -- in my opinion, is an excellent, useful, encompassing, conscientious, and from well-respected sources. But there is other work to do. Enough, "bro". --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drug rehabilitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for changes[edit]

1. Research on the current state of drug rehabilitation centers and evaluate a need for criticism and add this section to the page. (This is a concerning issue if rehab centers, as an institution, are having malpractice issues as people come to this page to make medical decisions). 2. Add some of the missing citations. 3. Perhaps expand the medications section of the page or reorganize it based on substance (alcohol, stimulants, opioids, etc.) Dmcha (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Edit[edit]

  • For the section on antidepressants for use of smoking cessation under the "Drug Rehabilitation" topic, is quitting smoking considered rehab? To me, drug rehab sounds like abuse of psychotropic substances. I looked at the source that was cited, and it seems more like tobacco use disorder, which I'm not entirely clear if that correlates with drug rehab. YeeAnn (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page had already noted something about antidepressants and smoking, my intention was to add a citation and further clarify their initial statement. I agree with you that it may not necessarily fit with drug rehab, but it is an important aspect of treating nicotine addiction. Kmarie14 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would consider changing the wording of the header from “criticism” to “Issues with Fraud.” The content here discusses the recent issues around manipulation of drug rehab centers for financial gain rather than criticism of drug rehab itself. Hanulchoi1 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the Criticisms subheading, I think that the last sentence should be cited. A possible citation could be found here https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=INS&division=1.&title=&part=2.&chapter=12.&article=8.
  • I would break this one sentence into two - "Bupropion inhibits the reuptake of norepinephrine and dopamine and has been FDA approved for smoking cessation, while nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant which has been used to aid in smoking cessation though has not been FDA approved for this indication"
  • There's information regarding criticism under the 12 Step Program section. It'd be worthwhile to move it to the Criticism section or to leave it where it is but elaborate about it in the Criticism section Priyavallabh (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear whether the citation at the end of the sentence is reference to only nortriptyline or to both Burproprion and nortriptyline. Additionally, I would add "it" between "though has".

Thank you I added a citation after the first sentence as well to clarify.Kmarie14 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The statement "Despite this, there are too many of these centers around the country for agencies to investigate completely." can be worded better to show impartiality. This sentence might be left out altogether as the sentence that follows it, clearly shows that there are too many centers for agencies to investigate.

Answering Questions #1-4:

  1. Overall, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view, though I do have a few suggestions. For example, this sentence under the header “Criticism”: “Despite ongoing efforts to combat addiction, there are clinics that may take advantage of vulnerable patients by billing government agencies for treatments that may help patients recover” can be made a bit more neutral with the wording “Despite…..there has been evidence of clinics taking advantage of….”. Another example under the same “Criticism” header: “Despite this, there are too many of these centers around the country for agencies to investigate completely”. This can be reworded to avoid the term “too many”, as this gives off a subjective point of view. YeeAnn (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The last sentence of the first paragraph under the Criticism section regarding IFPA should be cited. It'd also improve the article as a whole to try and find sources for the statements currently cited as [citation needed], although these are not in the sections you edited. The definition of recovery from the Betty Ford Institute is not from an article that is "open access", as readers must pay to read the article. Although your definition is taken from the abstract, we should try and cite things that are freely/completely available. Priyavallabh (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The article title are appropriately capitalized using sentence case. Nonproprietary drug names are appropriately treated as common nouns. Overall, the writing style reflects the writing style of an encyclopedia geared toward an audience of everyday person who do not have a medical background. There was 1 noted grammar error (omission of “it”) and one statement that could be better worded to show impartiality. Aside from these small changes, the edits follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles guidelines.
  4. I ran the edits through an online plagiarism detector, and overall, the content looks good. However, there are some direct quotations under the Recovery header, which should be re-worked.Hanulchoi1 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Edits[edit]

I have taken the peer reviews into consideration as I completed my final edits. I added a few more missing citations into the treatment and medication sections as well as added a few more facts relevant to the treatment process. Drug rehab is a very current issue and as treatment evolves and access to rehabilitation facilities improve, hopefully there will be more edits to this page. I am looking forward to seeing them.Kmarie14 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you guys for the thoughtful insights! I listened to your input and made some changes under the "Recovery" section (e.g. paraphrasing the direct quote and citing the pdf version of the journal article instead to make it viewable to the public). Dmcha (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Rehabilitation Revised[edit]

While reading over this article, I will be revising for a neutral tone, checking grammar and mechanics, watching for concise language, making sure it has a strong lead, keeping well-organized sections and paragraphs, adjusting the summary, and checking sources.

Any questions or comments, please let me know! Courtneymfoster (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Courtney Foster[reply]

Rehab related[edit]

Please let me know how can i rehab my drug addiction? 2401:4900:5D2C:41C8:B481:4BA4:A2:758B (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life orientation[edit]

Substance abuse 41.113.161.32 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation[edit]

I created meditation section with data and research about it Robercik101 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. We would need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, those did not. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie thanks there is section about it anyway, could I ask why there were bad? According to site
"Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary and secondary sources." Robercik101 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the problem anyway I will read this thanks Robercik101 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to read WP:MEDRS. The whole page. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Amelande, Josegonzalez12.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Health[edit]

what are the drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation@ 112.204.192.235 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drug_rehabilitation&oldid=1195299011"