Search

Background: The current emphasis among addiction treatment providers is to use person-first language, such as "a person with a substance use disorder," as a way to reduce stigma around addiction and resulting barriers to treatment. This study considers how individuals recovering from substance use feel about the terms "alcoholic" and "addict," particularly how they self-identify and whether they believe the terms carry stigma. Method: Thirty-five individuals were interviewed, recruited primarily, but not exclusively, from 12-step meetings (Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous), from 3 locations throughout a rural New England state. Interviews were transcribed and coded in Atlas Ti qualitative analysis software, and a content analysis of text coded with "stigma" was conducted. Results: Some comments reflected a belief that the terms "addict" and "alcoholic" carry a stigma. However, more comments rejected the notion of these being stigmatized terms; or acknowledged the stigma but reflected the subject's lack of internalizing of any stigma. Comments reflected other themes including a sense of pride, identity and ownership when self-identifying as an addict or alcoholic. Several comments suggested that person-first language is part of a larger movement to "soften everything," without changing the underlying condition (addiction). The findings may reflect the fact that subjects were recruited from 12-step programs, where the convention is to self-identity using the terms "alcoholic" and/or "addict." Conclusions: Some individuals seeking treatment for addiction may prefer self-identifying using old-school terminology (addict, alcoholic) rather than person-first language, for a variety of reasons (eg, they do not internalize the stigma of such terms). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about what recovery means to those with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis, a poorly understood, disabling chronic health condition. To explore this issue, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients reporting improvement (n = 9) and deterioration (n = 10) after a guided self-help intervention, and analyzed via "constant comparison." The meaning of recovery differed between participants—expectations for improvement and deployment of the sick role (and associated stigma) were key influences. While some saw recovery as complete freedom from symptoms, many defined it as freedom from the "sick role," with functionality prioritized. Others redefined recovery, reluctant to return to the lifestyle that may have contributed to their illness, or rejected the concept as unhelpful. Recovery is not always about eliminating all symptoms. Rather, it is a nexus between the reality of limited opportunities for full recovery, yet a strong desire to leave the illness behind and regain a sense of "normality." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]