Search

Background and aims: Recovery from alcohol problems in the absence of treatment or mutual‐aid is very common, but under‐researched. This study explores the lives of people who had resolved their alcohol problems without treatment, seeking to situate experiences of recovery in social contexts and broader life narratives. Design The in‐depth qualitative interviews were aided by a life‐history methodology that invited participants to account retrospectively for their lives. A narrative analysis was undertaken. Setting: Two major cities (Sydney and Melbourne) in Australia. Participants: People who had resolved an alcohol problem in the absence of treatment (n = 12) were recruited from the general community using convenience sampling. Measurements Eligible participants had received 'minimal treatment' for an alcohol use disorder: fewer than three sessions in an outpatient treatment programme or nine sessions with mutual‐aid groups (e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous), or having accessed mental health treatment for problems other than drinking at least 2 years prior or 1 year after having resolved an alcohol problem. Participants were considered to have had an alcohol use disorder if they reported two or more symptoms (DSM‐V) within a 1‐year period prior to the past year, using questions endorsed by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). People were considered to have resolved their alcohol use disorder by responding to the recruitment message calling for people who "used to have an alcohol problem but no longer do". The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT‐C) was used to understand participant's drinking behaviours in the past 12 months. Findings Four different narratives were identified in the analysis. In the emancipation narrative, identity development and major changes across the life‐curve were associated with separating oneself from an oppressive circumstance. In discovery narratives, art culture and other consciousness‐expanding experiences were sources of identity development, but sometimes a barrier to alcohol recovery. In mastery narratives, life events were understood as failures or successes, and recovery was positioned as an individual journey accomplished through increased problem awareness. Finally, in coping narratives, changes were understood as a series of continuous struggles, and recovery was made sense of through diagnostic discourses. Conclusions: People who resolve an alcohol use disorder in the absence of treatment or mutual‐aid appear to explain their recovery in terms of at least four different life narratives: emancipation, discovery, mastery or coping. Social contexts and cultures outside the treatment setting, and the various identities and narratives they provide, shape change processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self‐injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT. Design Cross‐sectional survey Setting: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia Participants: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017–March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5]. Measurements Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT. Findings Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10–2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86–12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16–2.91) and have met ICD‐10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65–7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00–1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT. Conclusions: Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentary to: Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]