Recovery from mental illness versus substance use disorder

Mental health professionals' perspectives regarding how recovery is conceptualized in Singapore: a constructivist grounded theory study

BACKGROUND

Mental health recovery has shifted from clinical conceptualizations to more personal ones. However, much of the lived experience literature has focused on people living with mental health conditions, and less attention has been placed on various mental health professionals, especially in Asian countries, where the personal recovery literature base is in its nascent stage.

AIM

We sought to contribute to a growing body of work by exploring recovery from the lens of different mental health professionals in Singapore.

METHODS

Mental health professionals in Singapore were invited to participate in an online interview through social media. The recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a constructive grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants were interviewed. A single core category, "living in society once more", and three categories, "An ongoing process", "Regaining ability to function in society", and "A normality report card" were identified from our data.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery within the Singapore mental health professional perspective focuses on helping individuals return to society and function productively while considering existing societal norms such as the highly competitive and pragmatic culture in Singapore. Future research can explore in greater depth the impact of these factors on the recovery process.

Stigma Surrounding the Use of Medically Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

This study sought to determine whether certain factors influenced public stigma toward the use of medication to treat opioid use disorders (MOUD). Method: In a series of 3 studies using between-subjects designs, hypothetical MOUD patients matched in age and educational status with the participants were varied in systematic ways to determine whether certain factors influenced stigmatizing views of the patients. Results: Study 1 (n = 142) determined that stigma levels were elevated for hypothetical patients receiving agonist medication for OUD compared to other medications or no medication at all. Study 2 (n = 144) found that hypothetical patients receiving opioid agonist medication for either heroin or pain pills were equally stigmatized and stigmatized more than hypothetical patients on nicotine agonist medication. Study 3 (n = 151) showed that stigmatizing attitudes did not change as a result of enhanced treatment services for hypothetical MOUD patients (i.e. therapy as a supplement to medication). Conclusions/Importance: Results indicate that patients receiving agonist medication for an OUD may be the target of public stigma. Public education on the efficacy of agonist medications for OUD is urgently needed to help reduce such stigma, which may facilitate treatment delivery, treatment adherence, and treatment success.