参与者与同侪康复支持专家的关系质量是所认为的相似性的函数:探索性分析

Martha Tillson , Alexander H. Lewis
{"title":"参与者与同侪康复支持专家的关系质量是所认为的相似性的函数:探索性分析","authors":"Martha Tillson ,&nbsp;Alexander H. Lewis","doi":"10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A growing evidence base supports the value of peer recovery support specialists (PRSS), particularly due to shared lived experience with participants (recipients of PRSS services). However, little research has examined whether congruence on certain aspects of “peerness” (e.g., demographics, experiences) matters for PRSS-participant relationships.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Through a pilot study under the NIDA-funded Initiative for Justice and Emerging Adult Populations (JEAP), adults who had recently received PRSS services (<em>N</em>=100) were interviewed. Participants completed a modified version of the Scales for Participant Alliance with Recovery Coach (SPARC), a measure of PRSS-participant relationship quality, and rated themselves as different/similar to their PRSS in several domains using a six-point scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants had met with their PRSS for a median of 10 sessions over two months. SPARC scores were unrelated to participant demographics or lived experiences. However, better-quality relationships were reported by participants who believed their PRSS was similar to them in relationships with family (<em>p</em>=.004), spirituality/religion (<em>p</em>=.001), age (<em>p</em>&lt;.001), and overall recovery pathway (<em>p</em>&lt;.001). Total SPARC scores were not significantly correlated with perceived PRSS-participant similarities on gender, race/ethnicity, substances of choice, and history of incarceration or substance use treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Results from this pilot study suggest that PRSS-participant alignment on past experiences (e.g., prior incarceration, choice of drugs) may not be needed to establish good-quality working relationships. However, similarities on factors related to current life stage (e.g., age, family relationships) and/or recovery process (e.g., overall pathway, spirituality) may be more important. Future research should employ mixed-methods approaches to elucidate these unique findings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72841,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000477/pdfft?md5=5218e71078ae54dc2f7ddcadad887ea7&pid=1-s2.0-S2772724624000477-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of participants’ relationships to peer recovery support specialists as a function of perceived similarities: An exploratory analysis\",\"authors\":\"Martha Tillson ,&nbsp;Alexander H. Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A growing evidence base supports the value of peer recovery support specialists (PRSS), particularly due to shared lived experience with participants (recipients of PRSS services). However, little research has examined whether congruence on certain aspects of “peerness” (e.g., demographics, experiences) matters for PRSS-participant relationships.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Through a pilot study under the NIDA-funded Initiative for Justice and Emerging Adult Populations (JEAP), adults who had recently received PRSS services (<em>N</em>=100) were interviewed. Participants completed a modified version of the Scales for Participant Alliance with Recovery Coach (SPARC), a measure of PRSS-participant relationship quality, and rated themselves as different/similar to their PRSS in several domains using a six-point scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants had met with their PRSS for a median of 10 sessions over two months. SPARC scores were unrelated to participant demographics or lived experiences. However, better-quality relationships were reported by participants who believed their PRSS was similar to them in relationships with family (<em>p</em>=.004), spirituality/religion (<em>p</em>=.001), age (<em>p</em>&lt;.001), and overall recovery pathway (<em>p</em>&lt;.001). Total SPARC scores were not significantly correlated with perceived PRSS-participant similarities on gender, race/ethnicity, substances of choice, and history of incarceration or substance use treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Results from this pilot study suggest that PRSS-participant alignment on past experiences (e.g., prior incarceration, choice of drugs) may not be needed to establish good-quality working relationships. However, similarities on factors related to current life stage (e.g., age, family relationships) and/or recovery process (e.g., overall pathway, spirituality) may be more important. Future research should employ mixed-methods approaches to elucidate these unique findings.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug and alcohol dependence reports\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000477/pdfft?md5=5218e71078ae54dc2f7ddcadad887ea7&pid=1-s2.0-S2772724624000477-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug and alcohol dependence reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000477\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景越来越多的证据支持同伴康复支持专家(PRSS)的价值,尤其是因为他们与参与者(PRSS 服务的接受者)有共同的生活经历。然而,很少有研究探讨 "同伴 "的某些方面(如人口统计学、经历)的一致性对于同伴康复支持专家与参与者之间的关系是否重要。方法通过一项由美国国家药物管理局(NIDA)资助的 "司法与新兴成年人群倡议"(JEAP)的试点研究,对最近接受过同伴康复支持专家服务的成年人(N=100)进行了访谈。参与者填写了 "参与者与康复教练联盟量表"(SPARC)的修订版,该量表用于衡量 PRSS 与参与者之间的关系质量,并使用六点量表对自己与 PRSS 在多个领域的不同/相似程度进行评分。SPARC 分数与参与者的人口统计或生活经历无关。然而,认为 PRSS 在家庭关系(p=.004)、灵性/宗教(p=.001)、年龄(p<.001)和整体康复途径(p<.001)方面与自己相似的参与者报告了更高质量的关系。SPARC 总分与 PRSS 参与者在性别、种族/民族、选择的药物以及监禁或药物使用治疗史方面的相似性无明显相关性。讨论这项试点研究的结果表明,PRSS 参与者在过去经历(如之前的监禁、选择的药物)方面的一致性可能并不需要建立高质量的工作关系。然而,与当前生活阶段(如年龄、家庭关系)和/或康复过程(如整体途径、精神)相关的因素的相似性可能更为重要。未来的研究应采用混合方法来阐明这些独特的发现。
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
Quality of participants’ relationships to peer recovery support specialists as a function of perceived similarities: An exploratory analysis

Background

A growing evidence base supports the value of peer recovery support specialists (PRSS), particularly due to shared lived experience with participants (recipients of PRSS services). However, little research has examined whether congruence on certain aspects of “peerness” (e.g., demographics, experiences) matters for PRSS-participant relationships.

Methods

Through a pilot study under the NIDA-funded Initiative for Justice and Emerging Adult Populations (JEAP), adults who had recently received PRSS services (N=100) were interviewed. Participants completed a modified version of the Scales for Participant Alliance with Recovery Coach (SPARC), a measure of PRSS-participant relationship quality, and rated themselves as different/similar to their PRSS in several domains using a six-point scale.

Results

Participants had met with their PRSS for a median of 10 sessions over two months. SPARC scores were unrelated to participant demographics or lived experiences. However, better-quality relationships were reported by participants who believed their PRSS was similar to them in relationships with family (p=.004), spirituality/religion (p=.001), age (p<.001), and overall recovery pathway (p<.001). Total SPARC scores were not significantly correlated with perceived PRSS-participant similarities on gender, race/ethnicity, substances of choice, and history of incarceration or substance use treatment.

Discussion

Results from this pilot study suggest that PRSS-participant alignment on past experiences (e.g., prior incarceration, choice of drugs) may not be needed to establish good-quality working relationships. However, similarities on factors related to current life stage (e.g., age, family relationships) and/or recovery process (e.g., overall pathway, spirituality) may be more important. Future research should employ mixed-methods approaches to elucidate these unique findings.

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
Drug and alcohol dependence reports
Drug and alcohol dependence reports Psychiatry and Mental Health
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
100 days
期刊最新文献
High-intensity interval training alleviates ethanol-induced renal damage: A study on inflammation, oxidative stress, and histopathological changes in rats Sex differences in normative modeling of cortical thickness in cannabis use disorder Association of safer smoking supply distribution with participant encounters and naloxone distribution from syringe services programs: Findings from the National Survey of Syringe Services Programs in the United States Predictors for recurrence of drug use among males on probation for methamphetamine use in Japan: a one-year follow-up study A mixed-methods investigation of an ecological momentary assessment protocol for cigarette-smoking youth: Psychometric properties and participant experiences
×
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