Search

Background: There is a growing evidence base around predictors of retention and completion in a range of recovery residence models, particularly Oxford Houses and Sober Living Houses, and recovery housing is recognized as a clearly evidenced area of recovery intervention. The aim of the study was to quantitatively assess recovery capital in a sample of recovery residence clients., Method: The study used a repeated measures self-completion of a standardized recovery capital instrument (REC-CAP) for clients retained across various houses within one Level 2 recovery residence provider whose program was based on a 12-step approach. While 823 clients participated in the baseline assessment, a sample of 267 clients was achieved for six-month follow-up interview, based on those retained in the residence. A logistic regression model examined factors associated with retention and a repeated measures marginal mixed model evaluated the factors associated with changes in recovery capital between the baseline and the follow-up assessment., Results: Members of the group that remained in recovery residences were more likely to be older with a record of high participation in recovery groups, with greater drop-out among younger residents, female residents and those with an identified housing need. For those retained to follow-up, greater recovery capital growth was associated with employment, higher levels of social support and more recovery group involvement, as well as age and a higher quality of life. The need for family support was shown to reduce levels of recovery capital. However, those younger people who were retained reported better recovery capital growth during the initial six months of residence., Conclusion: The key conclusion is that while recovery capital generally increases during a stay in a recovery residence, it does not do so consistently across the sample population. This has implications for how pathways to recovery group engagement are supported for women and young people and how social support (encompassing housing, employment and family issues) is provided to those populations during periods of residence. This suggests the potential need for training and guidance for house managers working with these groups., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In 1984, a press release by a Miami, Florida, neurologist described a possible cluster of persons with multiple sclerosis in Key West, Florida. The authors examined the cluster using prevalence rates, which are recognized as having a latitudinal gradient for multiple sclerosis, being generally high at high latitudes and low at low latitudes. Case ascertainment showed 32 definite or probable cases among residents of the study area (latitude, 24.5 degrees N) on September 1, 1985, a prevalence rate of 70.1/100,000 population--14 times the rate estimated for this latitude by modeling techniques based on US and international data, 7-44 times the rate for areas at similar latitudes (Mexico City, Mexico; Hawaii; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Charles County, South Carolina), and 2.5 times the expected rate for all US latitudes below 37 degrees N. This finding could not be explained by changes in diagnostic criteria, case ascertainment bias, immigration of people from high-risk areas, an unusual population structure, a large percentage of related cases, or better survival. Prevalent cases (n = 22) were more likely than general population controls (n = 76), matched by sex and 10-year age group, to have: lived longer in Key West, been a nurse, ever owned a Siamese cat, had detectable antibody titers to coxsackievirus A2 and poliovirus 2, and ever visited a local military base (Fleming Key). Key West has an unusually high prevalence of multiple sclerosis that may be related to these risk factors.