| Literature DB >> 32426014 |
Mehrnoosh Inanlou1, Bahman Bahmani1, Ali Farhoudian2, Forough Rafiee3.
Abstract
Objective: Despite the fact that a practical definition of addiction recovery is necessary to conduct an appropriate intervention and research, this concept is still vague and there is no consensus over its meaning and how to measure it. Thus, this study aimed to define and clarify this concept based on the available literature. Method : The theoretical part of Schwartz_Barcott and Kim's Hybrid Model of concept analysis was used to analyze the concept of "Addiction Recovery." To find the relevant literature, an electronic search on valid databases was conducted using keywords related to the concept of addiction recovery. Medlib, IranMedex, Magiran, SID, Irandoc, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, Pro Quest, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid, and Wiley databases were searched up to December 2018 without a time limitation using the following keywords: "Substance use disorders", "Drug use", "Recovery", "Opioids", "Addiction treatment", "Dependency", "Rehabilitation", Remission", "Concept analysis", "Restore", "Definition", "Meaning", and "Conceptualization". The Conventional content analysis was used on selected research articles.Entities:
Keywords: Concept Analysis; Definition; Recovered; Recovery; Substance Use Disorders
Year: 2020 PMID: 32426014 PMCID: PMC7215253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Psychiatry ISSN: 1735-4587
Figure 1Summary of the Theoretical Phase Based on the PRISMA Flowchart (Selection, Critical Appraisal, Data Extraction of Studies)
An Overview of Some of Studies Conducted on the Concept of Addiction Recovery
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Abedi (2017) | IRAN | Qualitative | Abstinence | 10 member of NA | Interview |
| 2 | BFI consensus panel | USA | Consensus panel | Recovery definition | ||
| 3 | Best et al. (2011) | USA | Mixed method | Recovery Experience | 205recovered | Questioner- |
| 4 | Best etal (2016) | UK | Theoretical paper | Model of recovery | ||
| 5 | Cano et al.( 2017) | USA | Cross sectional | Recovery capital | 546 participants | Questioner |
| 6 | Duffy & Baldwin | UK | Qualitative | Recovery factors | 45post recovery | Interview |
| 7 | Dodge et al. (2010) | USA | Qualitative | Measuring recovery | 11professional | Content |
| 8 | Dupont et al ( 2016) | USA | Commentary article | Recovery element | ||
| 9 | Dennis etal (2005) | USA | Cohort | Recovery duration | 1271 person in | Questioner |
| 10 | Davidosn & white | USA | Review | Recovery concept | ||
| 11 | El-gubaly (2012) | Canada | Review article | Recovery concept | ||
| 12 | Elswik et al (2018) | USA | Qualitative | Recovery exprience | 8 in recovery person | Interview |
| 13 | Galanter et al (2007) | USA | Instrument | Spiritual Instrument | Questioner | |
| 14 | Galanter (2007) | USA | Review | Spirituality in recovery | ||
| 15 | Laudet (2007) | USA | Mixed method | Recovery mean | 440 in recovery | Questioner- |
| 16 | Laudet& Humphry | USA | Review | Recovery Concept | ||
| 17 | Laudet (2008) | USA | Review | Recovery Road | ||
| 18 | Laudet etal (2006) | USA | Cross-sectional | Recovery factor | 353 Recovery | Questioner |
| 19 | Laudet (2002) | USA | Pilot study | Recovery pathway | 90 persons | Questioner |
| 20 | Law & Guo (2012 ) | Taiwan | exprimental | Recovery & hope | 40 female drug | Questioner |
| 21 | Long & Vaughn | USA | Qualitative | Recovery exprience | 7 young person | Interview |
| 22 | Grant (2007) | USA | Qualitative | Recovery experience | 25in-recovery | Interview |
| 23 | Groshkova (2013) | USA | Focus group | Recovery capital | 142 individuals | Questioner |
| 24 | Horoosh& Freedman | Israel | Cross sectional | Addiction related | 104 recovered | Questioner |
| 25 | O Sullivan (2017) | USA | Cross sectional | Recovery capital | 76 in recovery | Questioner |
| 26 | Neal etal (2014) | UK | Focus group | Recovery elements | 25professional | Group |
| 27 | Neal et al (2015) | UK | Focus group | Recovery measure | 46 in recovery | Questioner |
| 28 | Neal etal (2016 ) | UK | Focus group | Recovery indicators | 124 different | Group |
| 29 | Kaskutas etal (2014) | USA | Internet based | Element of recovery | 9,341 person in | Questioner |
| 30 | Kelly et al (2015) | USA | Review | Recovery definition | ||
| 31 | Kearney (1998) | USA | Grounded formal | Recovery experience | 10 article | Content |
| 32 | Kaskutas et al (2015) | USA | Comparative study | Recovery definition | 1237 inrecovery | Questioner |
| 33 | Shineborne (2011) | UK | Qualitative | Subjective | 6 female | Interview |
| 34 | Sterling etal ( 2013) | USA | Cross sectional | Recovery | 149 in recovery | Questioner |
| 35 | White( 2005) | USA | Review | Recovery concept | ||
| 36 | White & Kurtz (2006) | USA | Assay | Recovery Experience | ||
| 37 | White (2009) | USA | Review | Community | ||
| 38 | Witbrodt et al (2015) | USA | Comparative study | Recovery typology | 4912 in recovery | Questioner |
| 39 | White et al (2006) | USA | Commentary | Recovery factors |
Figure 2Antecedents and Consequences of Addiction Recovery