Thomasina Jo Borkman1, Aina Stunz2, Lee Ann Kaskutas2. 1. a Department of Sociology & Anthropology , George Mason University , Fairfax , Virginia , USA. 2. b Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute , Emeryville , California , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The What is Recovery? (WIR) study identified specific elements of a recovery definition that people in substance abuse recovery from multiple pathways would endorse. OBJECTIVES: To explain how participatory research contributed to the development of a comprehensive pool of items defining recovery; and to identify the commonality between the specific items endorsed by participants as defining recovery and the abstract components of recovery found in four important broad recovery definitions. METHODS: A four-step, mixed-methods, iterative process was used to develop and pretest items (August 2010 to February 2012). Online survey recruitment (n = 238) was done via email lists of individuals in recovery and electronic advertisements; 54 were selected for in-depth telephone interviews. Analyses using experientially-based and survey research criteria resulted in a revised item pool of 47 refined and specific items. The WIR items were matched with the components of four important definitions. RESULTS: Recovering participants (1) proposed and validated new items; (2) developed an alternative response category to the Likert; (3) suggested criteria for eliminating items irrelevant to recovery. The matching of WIR items with the components of important abstract definitions revealed extensive commonality. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: The WIR items define recovery as ways of being, as a growth and learning process involving internal values and self-awareness with moral dimensions. This is the first wide-scale research identifying specific items defining recovery, which can be used to guide service provision in Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care.
BACKGROUND: The What is Recovery? (WIR) study identified specific elements of a recovery definition that people in substance abuse recovery from multiple pathways would endorse. OBJECTIVES: To explain how participatory research contributed to the development of a comprehensive pool of items defining recovery; and to identify the commonality between the specific items endorsed by participants as defining recovery and the abstract components of recovery found in four important broad recovery definitions. METHODS: A four-step, mixed-methods, iterative process was used to develop and pretest items (August 2010 to February 2012). Online survey recruitment (n = 238) was done via email lists of individuals in recovery and electronic advertisements; 54 were selected for in-depth telephone interviews. Analyses using experientially-based and survey research criteria resulted in a revised item pool of 47 refined and specific items. The WIR items were matched with the components of four important definitions. RESULTS: Recovering participants (1) proposed and validated new items; (2) developed an alternative response category to the Likert; (3) suggested criteria for eliminating items irrelevant to recovery. The matching of WIR items with the components of important abstract definitions revealed extensive commonality. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: The WIR items define recovery as ways of being, as a growth and learning process involving internal values and self-awareness with moral dimensions. This is the first wide-scale research identifying specific items defining recovery, which can be used to guide service provision in Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care.
Authors: Lee Ann Kaskutas; Thomasina J Borkman; Alexandre Laudet; Lois A Ritter; Jane Witbrodt; Meenakshi Sabina Subbaraman; Aina Stunz; Jason Bond Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Deborah A Dawson; Bridget F Grant; Frederick S Stinson; Patricia S Chou; Boji Huang; W June Ruan Journal: Addiction Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.526