Search

To understand how the social networks of a new recovery community can help sustain recovery, focusing on processes of social identity change, in the context of the wider UK recovery movement. A cross-sectional, mixed-methods social network analysis (SNA) of ego-network sociograms to map network transitions, using retrospective measures. Ten men were recruited from a peer-worker programme, in the South Ayrshire Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP), West of Scotland. Network measures were compared between two timepoints, just prior to current recovery and the present time. Measures included size and density, closeness of members, and their positive or negative influence, proportion of alcohol and other drug (AOD) using and recovery peers, and extent of separate subgroups. These were complemented with qualitative interview data. There was a significant transition in network composition, with the replacing of AOD-using peers with recovery peers and a broader transformation from relationships being framed as negative to positive. However, there was no significant transition in network structure, with AOD-using and recovery networks both consisting of strong ties and a similar density of connections between people in the networks. The transition in network composition between pre-recovery and the present indicates a different set of social influences, while the similarities in network structure indicate that the recovery network replaced the role of the using network in providing close bonds. This helped reduce social isolation experienced in early-recovery and provided a pathway into more structured opportunities for volunteering and employment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing body of evidence shows that informal mutual aid groups benefit those in addiction recovery. However, attention for mutual aid groups in practice and policy varies internationally and is only recently emerging in continental Europe. Existing evidence is mostly limited to studies of Alcoholics Anonymous groups in the United States. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine the relationship between membership of a variety of mutual aid groups and recovery capital, participation in social networks, and commitment to sobriety for individuals in drug addiction recovery (N = 367), living in the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium. A convenience sample of participants completed an extensive assessment about their recovery experiences. Sixty-nine percent of participants reported lifetime (ever) membership of different mutual aid groups. Analyses reveal that membership of mutual aid groups is strongly associated with more participation and (self-reported) changes in social networks, greater levels of recovery capital, and a stronger commitment to sobriety. The findings suggest that participation in mutual aid groups may support addiction recovery through multiple mechanisms of change in favor of recovery. These findings highlight how mutual aid support may complement formal addiction treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery is now the defining feature of UK drug and alcohol policy. Despite this policy emphasis, little attention has been paid to the lived experience of those in recovery. Instead, research has typically concentrated on treatment populations, which are predominantly male. Consequently, we have little insight into recovery experiences in general, and specifically how they might differ for females and males. This article makes an important contribution through offering a unique insight into the addiction/recovery pathways of 342 female and 410 male participants using data gathered via the UK Life in Recovery survey. Participants were recruited via social media and recovery groups. Bivariate analyses were used to explore gender differences in relation to personal characteristics, addiction and recovery (self-defined), well-being, and family life. These data suggest that a greater proportion of females in recovery report having specific needs in relation to mental health and relationships with children or partners whilst a greater proportion of males disclosed having specific needs in relation to physical health. Whilst the findings reflect the importance of ongoing support for everyone in recovery, they also suggest the need to provide gender-responsive recovery support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Experiencing shame can be a risk factor for relapse for people recovering from alcohol dependence, but for some it may act as a necessary protective factor for preventing relapse. Knowing how best to manage shame is therefore an important issue, yet the precise nature of the relationship between shame and alcohol dependence remains largely unexplored. Research questions: (1) In what ways do participants tell their stories of shame? (2) How is shame experienced and/or understood by those in recovery from alcohol dependence? Method: Eight participants were recruited from Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) groups and invited to tell their story of recovery. Stories were then analysed using a narrative analysis, focusing on how participants narrated their stories and made sense of their experiences of shame in particular. Findings: Participants spoke about an inherent deep-rooted negative view about themselves, which was present long before alcohol dependence developed. Alcohol served as a means of connection to others and a way of artificially relieving feelings of worthlessness. Recovery was about finding somewhere safe to talk about feelings of shame and make sense of these experiences. Conclusions: The results indicate that management of shame is an important component of recovery programmes for alcohol dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To identify indicators that diverse stakeholders believe are important when measuring recovery from addiction.Methods: Our previous work with service users had generated 28 indicators of recovery. Using Delphi group methodology (three rounds), we assessed the extent to which stakeholders working in the addictions field agreed that the 28 indicators were important on a scale of 1–10. Participants included 146 individuals with diverse job roles in 124 organisations across the British Isles.Findings: Round 1 scores were high. There was evidence of greater scoring consensus in Round 2, but this trend was less certain in Round 3. Participants scored 27/28 indicators ≥7/10 in Round 3, so confirming their importance. The only Round 3 indicator with a mean score <7 was “experiencing cravings”. There were statistical differences between the Round 3 indicator scores of some sub-groups of participants, but absolute differences were small (never more than 1 point for any indicator).Conclusions: We have identified 27 recovery indicators that stakeholders working within the addiction field in the British Isles consistently ranked as important. Replicating our methods in other countries, and with additional stakeholder groups, will provide greater clarity on the term “recovery”, its relevance and value, and how it can best be measured. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]