Search

An increasing body of evidence shows that informal mutual aid groups benefit those in addiction recovery. However, attention for mutual aid groups in practice and policy varies internationally and is only recently emerging in continental Europe. Existing evidence is mostly limited to studies of Alcoholics Anonymous groups in the United States. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine the relationship between membership of a variety of mutual aid groups and recovery capital, participation in social networks, and commitment to sobriety for individuals in drug addiction recovery (N = 367), living in the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium. A convenience sample of participants completed an extensive assessment about their recovery experiences. Sixty-nine percent of participants reported lifetime (ever) membership of different mutual aid groups. Analyses reveal that membership of mutual aid groups is strongly associated with more participation and (self-reported) changes in social networks, greater levels of recovery capital, and a stronger commitment to sobriety. The findings suggest that participation in mutual aid groups may support addiction recovery through multiple mechanisms of change in favor of recovery. These findings highlight how mutual aid support may complement formal addiction treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic and measures have placed various burdens on societies and individuals. Emerging evidence suggests that people in drug addiction recovery were negatively affected. This study investigates whether risk and protective factors associated with return to problematic substance use differed between the periods before and during the pandemic for those in recovery. A convenience sample of persons in drug addiction recovery for at least three months completed an assessment at baseline before the pandemic (T0, N = 367) and at two consecutive follow-ups 12 months apart (T1, N = 311; T2, N = 246). The final follow-up took place during the pandemic (2020−2021). We analyzed rates and predictors of problematic substance use in both periods, and whether relations between predictors and problematic use differed between the periods. Rates of problematic use did not differ significantly before and during the pandemic for those who were followed-up. However, the relationship between problematic use and commitment to sobriety differed between both periods (OR = 3.24, P = 0.010), as higher commitment was only associated with lower odds of problematic use during (OR = 0.27, P < 0.001), but not before, the pandemic (OR = 0.93, P = 0.762). In both periods, persons who were engaged in psychosocial support had lower odds of problematic use. The COVID-19 pandemic was not followed by significant return to problematic substance use in a cohort of people who were already in drug addiction recovery for some time before the pandemic. However, with restricted access to environmental resources, they may have been more dependent on internal motivations. Targeting personal recovery resources with interventions could therefore reduce the chances of return to problematic substance use during a pandemic. • The COVID-19 pandemic was not followed by an increase in problematic substance use in a drug addiction recovery cohort. • Different variables predicted problematic substance use in recovery in the period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. • During the pandemic participants seem to have been more dependent on commitment from themselves to prevent problematic use. • Building up internal recovery resources may reduce vulnerability for return to problematic substance use during a pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to obtain reliable reference charts for sleep duration, estimate the prevalence of sleep complaints across the lifespan and identify risk indicators of poor sleep. Studies were identified through systematic literature search in Embase, Medline and Web of Science (9 August 2019) and through personal contacts. Eligible studies had to be published between 2000 and 2017 with data on sleep assessed with questionnaires including ≥100 participants from the general population. We assembled individual participant data from 200,358 people (aged 1-100 years, 55% female) from 36 studies from the Netherlands, 471,759 people (40-69 years, 55.5% female) from the United Kingdom and 409,617 people (≥18 years, 55.8% female) from the United States. One in four people slept less than age-specific recommendations, but only 5.8% slept outside of the 'acceptable' sleep duration. Among teenagers, 51.5% reported total sleep times (TST) of less than the recommended 8-10 h and 18% report daytime sleepiness. In adults (≥18 years), poor sleep quality (13.3%) and insomnia symptoms (9.6-19.4%) were more prevalent than short sleep duration (6.5% with TST < 6 h). Insomnia symptoms were most frequent in people spending ≥9 h in bed, whereas poor sleep quality was more frequent in those spending <6 h in bed. TST was similar across countries, but insomnia symptoms were 1.5-2.9 times higher in the United States. Women (≥41 years) reported sleeping shorter times or slightly less efficiently than men, whereas with actigraphy they were estimated to sleep longer and more efficiently than man. This study provides age- and sex-specific population reference charts for sleep duration and efficiency which can help guide personalized advice on sleep length and preventive practices.