The Evolution of a UK Evidence Base for Substance Misuse Recovery

The Hidden Challenge

Research on drug courts over the past decades has focused primarily on individual predictors of success and/or has examined the effectiveness of various judicial as well as therapeutic intervention strategies. To broaden our understanding of recovery as it occurs within the context of social networks, the following paper discusses the application of a new network-based framework of recovery capital. Participants in a small rural southeastern Adult Drug Court filled out a series of questionnaires and participated in a number of semi-structured interviews that assessed the availability of network-based recovery capital. The findings of this exploratory study suggest that participants possess restrictive resource portfolios and tend to over-rely on therapeutic (artificial) networks for support. Select implications for future research and treatment interventions are discussed.

Recovery post treatment: plans, barriers and motivators

Background

The increasing focus on achieving a sustained recovery from substance use brings with it a need to better understand the factors (recovery capital) that contribute to recovery following treatment. This work examined the factors those in recovery perceive to be barriers to (lack of capital) or facilitators of (presence of capital) sustained recovery post treatment.

Methods

A purposive sample of 45 participants was recruited from 11 drug treatment services in northern England. Semi-structured qualitative interviews lasting between 30 and 90 minutes were conducted one to three months after participants completed treatment. Interviews examined key themes identified through previous literature but focused on allowing participants to explore their unique recovery journey. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches.

Results

Participants generally reported high levels of confidence in maintaining their recovery with most planning to remain abstinent. There were indications of high levels of recovery capital. Aftercare engagement was high, often through self referral, with non substance use related activity felt to be particularly positive. Supported housing was critical and concerns were raised about the ability to afford to live independently with financial stability and welfare availability a key concern in general. Employment, often in the substance use treatment field, was a desire. However, it was a long term goal, with substantial risks associated with pursuing this too early. Positive social support was almost exclusively from within the recovery community although the re-building of relationships with family (children in particular) was a key motivator post treatment.

Conclusions

Addressing internal factors and underlying issues i.e. ‘human capital’, provided confidence for continued recovery whilst motivators focused on external factors such as family and maintaining aspects of a ‘normal’ life i.e. ‘social and physical capital’. Competing recovery goals and activities can leave people feeling under pressure and at risk of taking on or being pushed to do too much too soon. The breadth of re-integration and future plans at this stage is limited primarily to the recovery community and treatment sector. Services and commissioners should ensure that this does not become a limiting factor in individuals’ long term recovery journeys.

Does active referral by a doctor or 12-Step peer improve 12-Step meeting attendance? Results from a pilot randomised control trial

BACKGROUND

Active engagement in 12-Step self-help groups (SHG) is associated with improvements in substance use outcomes during and after treatment, yet levels of participation in SHG meetings in the U.K. remain low.

METHOD

An RCT investigating the impact of active referral to SHG, delivered by doctors or 12-Step peers during inpatient treatment on both inpatient and post-treatment meeting attendance was conducted. 151 inpatients with alcohol, opiate, crack-cocaine or benzodiazepine dependence undergoing detoxification, received one of two active referral interventions: 12-Step peer intervention (PI), doctor intervention (DI), or no intervention (NI). 83% of the sample was followed up, 2-3 months following discharge.

RESULTS

Active referral interventions significantly increased attendance at 12-Step meetings during inpatient treatment (88% versus 73%, p<.05). Rates of post-discharge meeting attendance were PI=64%, DI=48%, NI=33%, with those in the PI group significantly (OR=3.6; CI=1.3, 9.8) more likely to have attended. Inpatient meeting attenders were three times as likely to have attended meetings post-discharge (59% versus 20%, p<.01), and post-discharge meeting attenders reported significantly higher abstinence rates (60.8% versus 39.2%, p<.05) at follow-up. However, abstinence rates did not differ significantly across intervention groups (44% [PI], 41% [DI] and 36% [NI]).

CONCLUSION

Attendance at 12-Step SHGs is associated with greater rates of abstinence and active referral, especially by 12-Step peers, increases 12-Step SHG attendance rates. However, improved clinical outcomes among attendees might not occur until stronger recovery peer support networks are established. These results show promise for the benefit of incorporating Twelve Step Facilitation into U.K. treatment settings.