Search

Aims: To explore how service users' views of measuring addiction recovery differ from those of service providers. Methods: Five focus groups conducted in two English cities with (i) people currently using Class A drugs (n = 6); (ii) people currently using alcohol (n = 12); (iii) individuals in residential detoxification (n = 12); (iv) individuals in residential rehabilitation (n = 7); and (v) people who defined themselves as ex drug or alcohol users (n = 7). Each focus group reviewed 76 measures of recovery previously identified by senior service providers. Findings: Service users identified multiple problems with the 76 measures. Difficulties could be categorized as expecting the impossible of service users; the dangers of progress; the hidden benefits of negative outcomes; outcomes that negate the agency in recovery; contradictory measures; failure to recognise individual differences; entrenched vulnerabilities; the misattribution of feelings and behaviours; and inappropriate language. Conclusions: Service users experience recovery as a process and personal journey that is often more about 'coping' than 'cure'. Involving service users in designing measures of recovery can lessen the likelihood that researchers develop assessment tools that use inappropriate, contradictory or objectionable outcomes, and ambiguous and unclear language. People who have experienced drug or alcohol problems can highlight important weaknesses in dominant recovery discourses.

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]

Aims: To explore how service users' views of measuring addiction recovery differ from those of service providers. Methods: Five focus groups conducted in two English cities with (i) people currently using Class A drugs ( n = 6); (ii) people currently using alcohol ( n = 12); (iii) individuals in residential detoxification ( n = 12); (iv) individuals in residential rehabilitation ( n = 7); and (v) people who defined themselves as ex drug or alcohol users ( n = 7). Each focus group reviewed 76 measures of recovery previously identified by senior service providers. Findings: Service users identified multiple problems with the 76 measures. Difficulties could be categorized as expecting the impossible of service users; the dangers of progress; the hidden benefits of negative outcomes; outcomes that negate the agency in recovery; contradictory measures; failure to recognise individual differences; entrenched vulnerabilities; the misattribution of feelings and behaviours; and inappropriate language. Conclusions: Service users experience recovery as a process and personal journey that is often more about 'coping' than 'cure'. Involving service users in designing measures of recovery can lessen the likelihood that researchers develop assessment tools that use inappropriate, contradictory or objectionable outcomes, and ambiguous and unclear language. People who have experienced drug or alcohol problems can highlight important weaknesses in dominant recovery discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore ways of measuring addiction recovery and the extent of agreement/disagreement between diverse service providers on potential recovery indicators. Methods: Separate online Delphi groups with (i) addiction psychiatrists (n = 10); (ii) senior residential rehabilitation staff (n = 9); and (iii) senior inpatient detoxification unit staff (n = 6). Each group was conducted by email and followed the same structured format involving three iterative rounds of data collection. Content analyses were undertaken and the results from each group were compared and contrasted. Findings: Indicators of recovery spanned 15 broad domains: substance use, treatment/support, psychological health, physical health, use of time, education/training/employment, income, housing, relationships, social functioning, offending/anti-social behaviour, well-being, identity/self-awareness, goals/aspirations, and spirituality. Identification of domains was very consistent across the three groups, but there was some disparity between, and considerable disparity within, groups on the relative importance of specific indicators. Conclusions: Whilst there is general consensus that recovery involves making changes in a number of broad life areas and not just substance use, there is substantial disagreement on particular measures of progress. Further studies involving other stakeholder groups, particularly people who have personally experienced drug or alcohol dependence, are needed to assess how transferable the 15 identified domain of recovery are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the demographic, drug use and offending profile of arrestees in contact with arrest referral (AR) schemes in London, compares these contacts with the arrestee population as a whole, and with drug users presenting to treatment services in the community, and assesses the proportion and characteristics of AR contacts that go on to attend drug-treatment services. Routine monitoring data from AR schemes (April 2000 to March 2001) were analysed and compared with data (for equivalent time period) on arrestees from the Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) and data from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS). AR schemes see about 10% of arrestees in London. Approximately half of those assessed by an AR worker report using heroin (55%) and crack cocaine (49%) with a similar proportion (51%) having no previous contact with drug-treatment services. The large majority (80%) report previous convictions. Of those referred by AR workers (50% of assessments) between 25 and 37% attend a first appointment at a drug-treatment service. Drug users seen by AR workers are younger, more likely to come from ethnic minorities and more likely to be using crack cocaine than those presenting to treatment services in the community. AR is a key point of contact with problem drug users, including those considered under-represented at drugtreatment services. However, to fully assess the effectiveness of AR, further information is required about retention in treatment and its effect on drug use and offending behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thirty-four young cocaine users recruited from London, UK, participated in qualitative, in-depth interviews about their cocaine use and related behaviours. None had ever received treatment for a drug- or alcohol-related problem. Findings suggest that cocaine users may be younger and less well educated than previously thought. Some young people may perceive cocaine as a safer, more predictable alternative to ecstasy or amphetamines. There was little awareness of risks associated with cocaine use, particularly regarding concurrent heavy alcohol use. Few were able to describe personal 'harm-reduction' strategies to reduce the risks associated with cocaine use, whereas there was good awareness of appropriate measures to take when using ecstasy. Although crack was regarded very negatively compared with powder cocaine, the data indicated that in practice the boundary between the two forms of the drug might be becoming less well defined for some users. The findings suggest a need for national education and policy to raise awareness about the relationship between cocaine powder and crack, and the risks associated with use of the drug in either form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports the qualitative study exploring the range of factors influencing young people to use drugs in Great Britain. Presentation of the results from conducted in-depth interviews; Analysis of the individual-level influences; Discussion on the existing drug prevention approaches and opportunities for further development.

Presents a qualitative study on the perception of clients regarding inpatient treatment programs for drug and alcohol dependence in England. Description on the positive aspect of the treatment; Positive effect of the studies to the clients; Views of the clients on the therapeutic aspect of the treatment.