John F Kelly1, Nilofar Fallah-Sohy2, Julie Cristello2, Robert L Stout3, Leonard A Jason4, Bettina B Hoeppner5. 1. Recovery Research Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 151 Merrimac Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America. Electronic address: jkelly11@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Florida International University, United States of America. 3. DePaul University, United States of America. 4. Decision Sciences Institute, Providence, RI, United States of America. 5. Recovery Research Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 151 Merrimac Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recovery community centers (RCCs) have expanded across the U.S., serving as social "recovery hubs" that increase recovery capital (e.g., employment, housing) by providing resources that clinical care does not provide. While research supports RCCs' general utility, little is known about new participants' characteristics, predictors of engagement, services used, and benefits derived. Greater knowledge would inform the field about RCCs' clinical and public health potential. METHOD: Prospective, single-group study of individuals (N = 275) starting at RCCs (k = 7) in the northeastern U.S. and reassessed 3 months later regarding the services these individuals used and the benefits they derived (e.g., reduced substance problems, enhanced quality of life [QOL]). Regression and longitudinal models tested theorized relationships. RESULTS: Participants were mostly young to middle-aged, racially diverse, single, unemployed, men and women, with low education and income, suffering from opioid or alcohol use disorder, with a history of psychiatric problems, low QOL, and prior treatment/mutual-help participation. Attendance varied greatly, but on average, was 1-2 times/week, with greater RCC engagement predicted by Hispanic ethnicity, shorter travel time, prior treatment, lower initial social support, and relatively greater baseline QOL (QOL was low overall). Commonly used and highly valued services included social support infrastructures (e.g., recovery coaching/meetings), and technological and employment assistance. In longitudinal analyses (n = 138), the study observed improvements in duration of abstinence, substance problems, psychological well-being, and QOL, but not in recovery assets. CONCLUSION: Findings generally are consistent with prior observations that RCCs engage and provide benefits for individuals facing the greatest challenges in terms of clinical pathology and low QOL and resources.
OBJECTIVE: Recovery community centers (RCCs) have expanded across the U.S., serving as social "recovery hubs" that increase recovery capital (e.g., employment, housing) by providing resources that clinical care does not provide. While research supports RCCs' general utility, little is known about new participants' characteristics, predictors of engagement, services used, and benefits derived. Greater knowledge would inform the field about RCCs' clinical and public health potential. METHOD: Prospective, single-group study of individuals (N = 275) starting at RCCs (k = 7) in the northeastern U.S. and reassessed 3 months later regarding the services these individuals used and the benefits they derived (e.g., reduced substance problems, enhanced quality of life [QOL]). Regression and longitudinal models tested theorized relationships. RESULTS: Participants were mostly young to middle-aged, racially diverse, single, unemployed, men and women, with low education and income, suffering from opioid or alcohol use disorder, with a history of psychiatric problems, low QOL, and prior treatment/mutual-help participation. Attendance varied greatly, but on average, was 1-2 times/week, with greater RCC engagement predicted by Hispanic ethnicity, shorter travel time, prior treatment, lower initial social support, and relatively greater baseline QOL (QOL was low overall). Commonly used and highly valued services included social support infrastructures (e.g., recovery coaching/meetings), and technological and employment assistance. In longitudinal analyses (n = 138), the study observed improvements in duration of abstinence, substance problems, psychological well-being, and QOL, but not in recovery assets. CONCLUSION: Findings generally are consistent with prior observations that RCCs engage and provide benefits for individuals facing the greatest challenges in terms of clinical pathology and low QOL and resources.
Authors: John F Kelly; Robert L Stout; Leonard A Jason; Nilofar Fallah-Sohy; Lauren A Hoffman; Bettina B Hoeppner Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: John F Kelly; Brandon Bergman; Bettina B Hoeppner; Corrie Vilsaint; William L White Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492