一项英国全国性的研究,研究了在克服毒品或酒精问题的个人中采用或不采用康复身份的流行程度及其相关性。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1186/s13011-023-00579-2
Ed Day, Ifigeneia Manitsa, Amanda Farley, John F Kelly
{"title":"一项英国全国性的研究,研究了在克服毒品或酒精问题的个人中采用或不采用康复身份的流行程度及其相关性。","authors":"Ed Day, Ifigeneia Manitsa, Amanda Farley, John F Kelly","doi":"10.1186/s13011-023-00579-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of recovery has increasingly become an organizing paradigm in the addiction field in the past 20 years, but definitions of the term vary amongst interested groups (e.g. researchers, clinicians, policy makers or people with lived experience). Although professional groups have started to form a consensus, people with lived experience of alcohol or drug (AOD) problems use the term in a different way, leading to confusion in policy making in the UK. Greater knowledge about the prevalence and correlates of adopting a recovery identity amongst those who have overcome an AOD problem would inform clinical, public health, and policy communication efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey of individuals resolving a significant AOD problem (n = 1,373). Weighted analyses estimated prevalence and tested correlates of label adoption. Qualitative analyses summarized reasons for adopting or not adopting a recovery identity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proportion of individuals currently identifying as being in recovery was 52.4%, never in recovery 28.6%, and no longer in recovery 19.0%. Predictors of identifying as being in recovery included current abstinence from AOD, formal treatment, recovery support service or mutual-help participation, and history of being diagnosed with AOD or other psychiatric disorders. Qualitative analyses found themes around not adopting a recovery identity related to low AOD problem severity, viewing the problem as resolved, or having little difficulty in stopping.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite increasing use of the recovery label and concept in clinical and policy contexts, many resolving AOD problems do not identify in this manner. These are most likely to be individuals with less significant histories of impairment secondary to AOD and who have not engaged with formal or informal treatment systems. The understanding of the term recovery in this UK population did not completely align with abstinence from alcohol or drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":22041,"journal":{"name":"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"68"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10657010/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A UK national study of prevalence and correlates of adopting or not adopting a recovery identity among individuals who have overcome a drug or alcohol problem.\",\"authors\":\"Ed Day, Ifigeneia Manitsa, Amanda Farley, John F Kelly\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13011-023-00579-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of recovery has increasingly become an organizing paradigm in the addiction field in the past 20 years, but definitions of the term vary amongst interested groups (e.g. researchers, clinicians, policy makers or people with lived experience). Although professional groups have started to form a consensus, people with lived experience of alcohol or drug (AOD) problems use the term in a different way, leading to confusion in policy making in the UK. Greater knowledge about the prevalence and correlates of adopting a recovery identity amongst those who have overcome an AOD problem would inform clinical, public health, and policy communication efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey of individuals resolving a significant AOD problem (n = 1,373). Weighted analyses estimated prevalence and tested correlates of label adoption. Qualitative analyses summarized reasons for adopting or not adopting a recovery identity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proportion of individuals currently identifying as being in recovery was 52.4%, never in recovery 28.6%, and no longer in recovery 19.0%. Predictors of identifying as being in recovery included current abstinence from AOD, formal treatment, recovery support service or mutual-help participation, and history of being diagnosed with AOD or other psychiatric disorders. Qualitative analyses found themes around not adopting a recovery identity related to low AOD problem severity, viewing the problem as resolved, or having little difficulty in stopping.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite increasing use of the recovery label and concept in clinical and policy contexts, many resolving AOD problems do not identify in this manner. These are most likely to be individuals with less significant histories of impairment secondary to AOD and who have not engaged with formal or informal treatment systems. The understanding of the term recovery in this UK population did not completely align with abstinence from alcohol or drugs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10657010/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-023-00579-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-023-00579-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的20年里,康复的概念逐渐成为成瘾领域的一种组织范式,但是这个术语的定义在感兴趣的群体(如研究人员、临床医生、政策制定者或有生活经验的人)中有所不同。尽管专业团体已经开始形成共识,但有过酗酒或吸毒经历(AOD)问题的人以不同的方式使用这个术语,导致英国政策制定的混乱。更多地了解在克服了AOD问题的人中采用康复身份的流行程度和相关关系,将为临床、公共卫生和政策沟通工作提供信息。方法:我们对解决严重AOD问题的个体进行了全国代表性的横断面调查(n = 1,373)。加权分析估计了标签采用的流行程度和测试的相关因素。定性分析总结了采用或不采用恢复标识的原因。结果:目前正在康复的占52.4%,从未康复的占28.6%,不再康复的占19.0%。确定为康复的预测因素包括目前对AOD的戒断,正式治疗,康复支持服务或互助参与,以及被诊断患有AOD或其他精神疾病的历史。定性分析发现,围绕不采用与低AOD问题严重程度相关的恢复身份,将问题视为已解决,或在停止方面几乎没有困难的主题。结论:尽管在临床和政策背景下越来越多地使用恢复标签和概念,但许多解决AOD问题的方法并不是这样确定的。这些人最有可能是没有严重的AOD继发损害史的人,也没有接受过正式或非正式的治疗系统。英国人对康复一词的理解与戒酒或戒毒并不完全一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A UK national study of prevalence and correlates of adopting or not adopting a recovery identity among individuals who have overcome a drug or alcohol problem.

Background: The concept of recovery has increasingly become an organizing paradigm in the addiction field in the past 20 years, but definitions of the term vary amongst interested groups (e.g. researchers, clinicians, policy makers or people with lived experience). Although professional groups have started to form a consensus, people with lived experience of alcohol or drug (AOD) problems use the term in a different way, leading to confusion in policy making in the UK. Greater knowledge about the prevalence and correlates of adopting a recovery identity amongst those who have overcome an AOD problem would inform clinical, public health, and policy communication efforts.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey of individuals resolving a significant AOD problem (n = 1,373). Weighted analyses estimated prevalence and tested correlates of label adoption. Qualitative analyses summarized reasons for adopting or not adopting a recovery identity.

Results: The proportion of individuals currently identifying as being in recovery was 52.4%, never in recovery 28.6%, and no longer in recovery 19.0%. Predictors of identifying as being in recovery included current abstinence from AOD, formal treatment, recovery support service or mutual-help participation, and history of being diagnosed with AOD or other psychiatric disorders. Qualitative analyses found themes around not adopting a recovery identity related to low AOD problem severity, viewing the problem as resolved, or having little difficulty in stopping.

Conclusions: Despite increasing use of the recovery label and concept in clinical and policy contexts, many resolving AOD problems do not identify in this manner. These are most likely to be individuals with less significant histories of impairment secondary to AOD and who have not engaged with formal or informal treatment systems. The understanding of the term recovery in this UK population did not completely align with abstinence from alcohol or drugs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses research concerning substance abuse, with a focus on policy issues. The journal aims to provide an environment for the exchange of ideas, new research, consensus papers, and critical reviews, to bridge the established fields that share a mutual goal of reducing the harms from substance use. These fields include: legislation pertaining to substance use; correctional supervision of people with substance use disorder; medical treatment and screening; mental health services; research; and evaluation of substance use disorder programs.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing the drug addiction treatment service by introducing a new residential treatment model in the Philippines: A qualitative study. COVID-19 public health restrictions and opioid overdoes: a summative content analysis of emergency medical services records in three Texas counties. The relationship between insecure attachment and nicotine dependence among users of classic cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco products: a moderated mediation model. Access and barriers to safer supply prescribing during a toxic drug emergency: a mixed methods study of implementation in British Columbia, Canada. Initiation and/or re-initiation of drug use among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada from 2021 to 2022: a prospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1