Search

Introduction and Aims: The study investigates what 'recovery' means for those who describe themselves as in alcohol or drug recovery., Design and Methods: The project used multiple methods-snowballing, recruitment through recovery groups and advertisements in local press-to recruit 205 people (107 in alcohol and 98 in heroin recovery) who reported a lifetime dependence on alcohol and/or heroin; had not used their primary substance in the last year and perceived themselves to be either recovered or in recovery. They were interviewed by researchers using a structured questionnaire reported in the current paper and a semi-structured interview reported elsewhere., Results: The average time dependent for heroin users was 10.8 years and for drinkers 15.7years, but onset and desistance were earlier for heroin. Longer time since last use of alcohol or heroin was associated with better quality of life. Greater engagement in meaningful activities was associated with better functioning, and was associated with quality of life, followed by number of peers in recovery in the social network. Heroin users in abstinent recovery generally reported better functioning than those in maintained recovery., Discussion and Conclusions: Recovery experiences vary widely, but better functioning is typically reported after longer periods and is associated with supportive peer groups and more engagement in meaningful activities, and supports models promoting the development of peer networks immersed in local communities., (© 2011 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Background: Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain.Aims: To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction.Method: Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources.Results: Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin.Conclusions: Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing literature that seeks to evaluate the role of “recovery capital” in the resolution of substance use disorders. In this study, a structured instrument (the Assessment of Recovery Capital), along with an assessment of social networks among 176 former illicit drug users and drinkers, is measured in three locations in England. There were relationships between recovery capital and vocational activity (training or employment), physical health, psychological health, and overall quality of life, with larger social networks associated with enhanced personal and social recovery capital. The study demonstrates high levels of personal and social well-being—manifesting in engagement in community activities and strong social networks—among persons engaged in recovery support activities that was not linked to time in recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The study was based on a peer snowballing method involving members of a service users group in Birmingham, United Kingdom, who were asked to identify and interview members of their peer networks who had achieved 'sustained recovery' of one year. Two hundred and nineteen individuals were recruited who defined themselves as being in recovery, consisting of 132 individuals in medication maintained recovery and 87 in abstinent recovery. Those in maintained recovery were more anxious about using heroin and had lower self-efficacy, worse physical health, poorer quality of life, and more peer group members still using. Being older was associated with greater quality of life (rather than time since last use) supporting a 'maturing out' hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery group participation is relevant to both clinical and research activity. Its measurement with the Recovery Group Participation Scale (RGPS) is an attempt to have a measurement of participation across a range of recovery groups. The factor structure, among other psychometric properties of the scale, is however, undefined. The present study examined the factor structure of the RGPS in alcohol and drug recovery populations in Birmingham and Glasgow, United Kingdom. Participants from the Birmingham (n = 219) and Glasgow (n = 205) recovery studies who had a completed form of the RGPS formed the basis for the factor structure examination. Principal component analysis extracted one factor, which accounted for 39.3% and 67.4% in the Birmingham and the Glasgow samples, respectively. Overall scores on the RGPS were associated with higher quality-of-life scores and with greater self-esteem and social networks of nonusers in recovery. The key question that remains to be addressed is the evolving role of recovery group participation in prospective studies of growth of recovery capital and sustained recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the academic sources and origins of the 'recovery movement' in the drugs field in the United Kingdom and considers a series of disparate evidence sources that have been applied and used in this regard. Only two of these originate in traditional addictions materials-treatment outcome and cohort studies-with the remaining studies reviewed coming from a range of other areas. In particular, the sources include a switch in focus from the specialist treatment clinic to the community, and from the therapeutic to the more broadly social. The framework for this approach is explicitly developmental and attends to the published research around crime careers and addiction careers. The final sections of the article review recent UK addiction recovery research and assess where we are and what we currently know-and as a consequence the key gaps and the methodological questions that need to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]