A Nationwide Survey Study of Recovery Community Centers Supporting People in Recovery From Substance Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The medical community has become aware of its role in contributing to the opioid epidemic and must be part of its resolution. Recovery community centers (RCCs) represent a new underused component of recovery support. METHODS: This study performed an online national survey of all RCCs identified in the United States, and used US Census ZIP code tabulation area data to describe the communities they serve. RESULTS: Residents of areas with RCCs were more likely to be Black (16.5% vs 12.6% nationally, P = 0.005) and less likely to be Asian (4.7% vs 5.7%, P = 0.005), American Indian, or Alaskan Native (0.6% vs 0.8%, P = 0.03), or live rurally (8.5% vs 14.0%, P < 0.0001). More than half of RCCs began operations within the past 5 years. Recovery community centers were operated, on average, by 8.8 paid and 10.2 volunteer staff; each RCC served a median of 125 individuals per month (4-1,500). Recovery community centers successfully engaged racial/ethnic minority groups (20.8% Hispanic, 22.5% Black) and young adults (23.5% younger than 25 years). Recovery community centers provide addiction-specific support (eg, mutual help, recovery coaching) and assistance with basic needs, social services, technology access, and health behaviors. Regarding medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), RCC staff engaged members in conversations about MOUDs (85.2%) and provided direct support for taking MOUD (77.0%). One third (36.1%) of RCCs reported seeking closer collaboration with prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery community centers are welcoming environments for people who take MOUDs. Closer collaboration between the medical community and community-based peer-led RCCs may lead to significantly improved reach of efforts to end the opioid epidemic.

Disparities in Alcoholics Anonymous Participation from 2000 to 2020 Among U.S. Residents With an Alcohol Use Disorder in the National Alcohol Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Mutual-help groups (MHGs) like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) are effective for resolving alcohol use disorders (AUDs), but few studies have examined disparities in MHG participation, particularly recently. We used five waves of National Alcohol Survey data to investigate whether prevalence of AA attendance among those with a lifetime AUD differed by race/ethnicity, age, and sex, directly testing whether these associations varied with time. METHOD: Analyses pooled weighted data from 2000 to 2020, including only participants with a lifetime AUD and identifying as non-Hispanic White, Latinx/Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Black/African American (N = 8,876). Logistic regression models examined associations between lifetime AA attendance and survey year, race/ethnicity, age, and sex; models also tested for differences in demographic effects across survey year using interaction terms. RESULTS: In bivariate models, AA attendance was significantly less prevalent among participants identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White); ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64); and female (vs. male). Survey year was unrelated to AA attendance, and all interactions involving survey year were nonsignificant. In the final multivariate model (which controlled for severity and other help-seeking), disparities persisted for those identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.63) and ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64; aOR = 0.35); AA attendance was also less prevalent among Black/African American (vs. White) participants (aOR = 0.59), but sex became nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Results replicate and extend sparse findings regarding disparities in MHG attendance and suggest a stagnation in AA's growth and reach to underserved populations. Findings highlight the need to more effectively facilitate MHG attendance (and perhaps broader social network change) among racial/ethnic minorities and emerging adults.

Assessing a pilot scheme of intensive support and assertive linkage in levels of engagement, retention, and recovery capital for people in recovery housing using quasi-experimental methods.

INTRODUCTION: Strong and ever-growing evidence highlights the effectiveness of recovery housing in supporting and sustaining substance use disorder (SUD) recovery, especially when augmented by intensive support that includes assertive linkages to community services. This study aims to evaluate a pilot intensive recovery support (IRS) intervention for individuals (n = 175) entering certified Level II and III recovery residences. These individuals met at least three out of five conditions (no health insurance; no driving license; substance use in the last 14 days; current unemployment; possession of less than $75 capital). The study assesses the impact of the IRS on engagement, retention, and changes in recovery capital, compared to the business-as-usual Standard Recovery Support (SRS) approach (n = 1758). METHODS: The study employed quasi-experimental techniques to create weighted and balanced counterfactual groups. These groups, derived from the Recovery Capital assessment tool (REC-CAP), enabled comparison of outcomes between people receiving IRS and those undergoing SRS. RESULTS: After reweighting for resident demographics, service needs, and barriers to recovery, those receiving IRS exhibited improved retention rates, reduced likelihood of disengagement, and growth in recovery capital after living in the residence for 6-9 months. CONCLUSION: The results from this pilot intervention indicate that intensive recovery support, which integrates assertive community linkages and enhanced recovery coaching, outperforms a balanced counterfactual group in engagement, length of stay, and recovery capital growth. We suggest that this model may be particularly beneficial to those entering Level II and Level III recovery housing with lower levels of recovery capital at admission.

Mapping COVID vulnerability in relation to drug and alcohol recovery residence availability across the United States.

Recovery housing is an important resource for those in recovery from substance use disorders. Unfortunately, we know little about its relationship to key community health risk and protective factors, potentially limiting the role it could play as a broader health resource. Leveraging county-level data on recovery residences from the National Study of Treatment and Addiction Recovery Residences (NSTARR), this study used multilevel modeling to examine Community COVID Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores as well as availability of COVID testing and vaccination sites in relation to recovery housing. CCVI composite scores were positively associated with recovery housing availability. Analyses using CCVI thematic sub-scores found that population density and number of churches were positively associated with recovery housing availability, while epidemiological factors and healthcare system factors were negatively associated with recovery housing availability. In counties with recovery housing, there also was a positive association between CCVI and both COVID testing and vaccination availability. Recovery residences tend to be located in areas of high COVID vulnerability, reflecting effective targeting in areas with higher population density, more housing risk factors, and other high-risk environments and signaling a key point of contact to address broader health issues among those in recovery from substance use disorders.

Social Model Recovery and Recovery Housing.

Recovery housing is an important resource for many in their recovery from alcohol and other drug use disorders. Yet providers of recovery housing face a number of challenges. Many of these challenges are rooted in stigma and bias about recovery housing. The ability to describe the service and purported mechanisms of action vis-a-vis an overarching framework, approach, or orientation could also go a long way in adding credence to recovery housing as a service delivery mechanism. Several aspects of social model recovery are often explicitly built or organically reflected in how recovery housing operates, yet describing recovery housing in these terms often does little to demystify key features of recovery housing. To more fully cement social model recovery as the organizing framework for recovery housing this article aims to: review the history, current status, and evidence base for social model recovery; comment on challenges to implementing the social model in recovery housing; and delineate steps to overcome these challenges and establish an evidence base for social model recovery housing.

Giving and Receiving Help among Persons Entering Sober Living Houses.

Giving and receiving help are integral to creating the social environments necessary to support recovery. However, studies assessing the effects of helping behaviors have focused primarily on the benefits derived from giving help to others in 12-step programs and treatment. The current study examined the frequency of giving and receiving help among 188 persons entering sober living houses (SLHs), a type of recovery home that is common in California. Helping was assessed in three contexts: the SLH, 12-step meetings they attended, and interactions with their family and friends. Residents who gave help to others in one of these contexts tended to also receive help in that context. Residents who reported giving or receiving help in one context tended to report giving and receiving help in other contexts. Study findings suggest helping in recovery occurs in a broader, more reciprocal manner than currently conceptualized. Studies should address how giving and receiving help in different contexts affects recovery outcomes. Research is also needed to describe the determinants of giving and receiving help. Considerations for facilitating help among SLH residents are described.

Multilevel Effects of Environmental and Neighborhood Factors on Sober Living House Resident 12-Month Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Sober living houses (SLHs) are abstinence-based environments designed for individuals in recovery to live with others in recovery. Research shows that SLHs help some individuals maintain recovery and that certain SLH-related factors may be particularly protective. Here we assess how SLH housing and neighborhood characteristics are related to abstinence and psychiatric symptoms over time. METHOD: Baseline, 6-month, and 12-month data were collected from 557 SLH residents. Multilevel mixed models tested associations between house and neighborhood characteristics and individual-level percent days abstinent (PDA) and the number of psychiatric symptoms (measured with the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire [PDSQ]) as outcomes. Final models adjusted for sex, age, and race/ethnicity; ratings of house characteristics; and objective measurements of neighborhood-level exposures. RESULTS: Both PDA and PDSQ improved significantly (ps ≤ .05) over time in both unadjusted and adjusted models. More self-help groups and fewer alcohol outlets within one mile were significantly protective for PDA, whereas walkability was significantly related to worse PDA and PDSQ (ps ≤ .05). For house-level factors, better ratings of house maintenance were related to significantly fewer psychiatric symptoms, whereas higher scores on SLH's safety measures and personal or residence identity were related to more psychiatric symptoms (ps ≤ .05). No house-level factor was significantly related to PDA. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood-level factors such as increased availability of self-help groups and fewer nearby alcohol outlets may increase abstinence among individuals living in SLHs. House-level factors related to better maintenance may also facilitate improved mental health.

Outcomes Among Sober Living House Residents Who Relapse: Role of Recovery Capital.

Studies show individuals living in residential recovery homes on average make significant improvements in multiple areas of functioning. Residents who achieve and maintain complete abstinence have particularly good outcomes. Residents who relapse after entering the houses have been studied minimally. The current study examined outcomes for 197 residents who relapsed within six months after entering sober living houses (SLHs), which is one type of residential recovery home that is common in California. Despite having relapsed, these residents made significant improvements between entry into the house and 6-month follow-up on measures of percent days abstinent from alcohol and drugs (PDA), psychiatric symptoms, severity of employment problems, and stable housing. Higher recovery capital predicted higher PDA (coefficient = 0.28, SE = 0.09, p = .001) and lower severity of employment problems (coefficient = -0.00, SE = 0.00, p = .007). Recovery capital showed a significant decrease between baseline and 6-month follow-up among persons who relapsed and were no longer living in the house. SLH providers can draw upon social model recovery principles to enhance recovery capital. However, residents should also seek other sources of recovery capital outside the SLH, which may be particularly important for individuals who leave the home.

Moving Social Model Recovery Forward: Recent Research on Sober Living Houses.

Social model recovery is a peer centered approach to alcohol and drug problems that is gaining increased attention. This approach is well-suited to services in residential settings and typically includes living in a shared alcohol- and drug-free living environment where residents give and receive personal and recovery support. Sober Living Houses (SLHs) are recovery residences that explicitly use a social model approach. This paper describes recent research on SLHs, including new measures designed to assess their social and physical environments. We conclude that our understanding of social model is rapidly evolving to include broader, more complex factors associated with outcomes.

Development and initial findings from the Peer Recovery Coach (PRC) checklist: a new tool to assess the nature of peer recovery coaching service delivery.

Background: Peer recovery coaching is recovery support service for Substance Use Disorder (SUD) that emphasizes shared lived experience and social support. Though a promising intervention for SUD, differences in the roles, responsibilities, and operationalization of peer recovery coaching across studies make objective implementation and evaluation of this service a challenge.Objective: This study sought to develop a tool to better guide and operationalize peer recovery coaching service delivery. This study describes the initial development, acceptability, feasibility, and validity of this tool: The PRC Checklist.Methods: The PRC Checklist was conceptualized and operationalized by drawing from social support theory and recovery capital research. The PRC Checklist was utilized by PRCs in a pilot randomized controlled trial to demonstrate feasibility and acceptability. To further validate the PRC Checklist, recovery coaches (N = 16; 56% female) were recruited to complete a survey about their responsibilities and their perspectives on the content and potential utility of the PRC Checklist.Results: The PRC checklist used in the pilot study delineates personalized from generalized support and tracks 25 specific activities across three domains of support (i.e. socioemotional, informational, and instrumental). PRCs in the pilot study were able to use the PRC Checklist in all in-person initial baseline encounters and 96.4% of follow-up encounters. Qualitative information collected during project meetings was generally positive but also identified potential limitations to its use. All PRCs surveyed reported that they agreed that the PRC Checklist was helpful, encompassed the services they provided, represented a good idea, provided meaningful information, and would be easy to use. All five of the most common activities PRCs engaged in were reflected in the PRC Checklist.Conclusion: Capturing both personal and generalized support provided by PRCs, this work suggests that the PRC Checklist captures key activities engaged in and is a helpful tool for use in healthcare settings.

Do neighborhood characteristics of sober living houses impact recovery outcomes? A multilevel analysis of observational data from Los Angeles County.

OBJECTIVE: To identify neighborhood factors associated with recovery outcomes for sober living house (SLH) residents. METHODS: Six-month longitudinal data for new SLH residents (n = 557) was linked with census tract data, services available, alcohol outlets, and Walk Scores® (0-100 score indicating access to neighborhood resources) for 48 SLHs in 44 neighborhoods in Los Angeles County. RESULTS: Non-significant neighborhood characteristics in separate regressions for all outcomes were residents' ratings of perceived risk, percentage of residences with access to a car, percentage of homes over $500,000, percentage of renter-occupied units, percentage with income less than $25,000, percentage that were non-white, the density of substance inpatient within 10 miles, and transit scores from Walk Score®. Multilevel regressions found outpatient substance abuse treatment and density of AA groups were positively associated with more abstinent days. No neighborhood variables were associated with psychiatric symptoms. Higher perceived neighborhood cohesion, lower crime ratings, and better transportation ratings were associated with higher recovery capital. CONCLUSION: Greater neighborhood densities of substance abuse services and AA groups may help residents achieve more days abstinent. While residents may achieve better substance use outcomes even with negative perceptions of the neighborhood, positive perceptions of the neighborhoods may help them acquire more recovery capital.

Measuring Architecture in Recovery Homes: Recovery Home Architecture Scale.

Background: The settings where we live shape our daily experiences and interactions. Social environment and physical setting characteristics may be particularly important in communal living services, such as recovery homes for alcohol and drug disorders. Objectives: This paper describes the measurement and mobilization of architectural characteristics in one type of recovery home, sober living houses (SLHs). The Recovery Home Architecture Scale (RHAS) is a 25-item measure comprised of six subscales designed to assess architecture in SLHs. Results: Using a sample of 528 individuals residing in 41 houses, we found the RHAS had good interrater reliability, factor structure, and internal consistency. The measure also showed modest construct validity. The RHAS was not associated with length of stay (LOS) but did interact with a measure of the social environment that predicted LOS, the Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES). Conclusions: Future studies should include a more diverse sample of SLHs and assess how house management, recovery capital, and other factors work in concert with architecture.

Examining perceived effects of same-sex marriage legalization among sexual minority women: Identifying demographic differences and factors related to alcohol use disorder, depression, and self-perceived health.

Background: Reductions in structural stigma, such as gaining access to legalized same-sex marriage, is associated with positive psychological and physical health outcomes among sexual minorities. However, these positive outcomes may be less robust among sexual minority women (SMW). Methods: This study examined how perceptions of the impact of legalized same-sex marriage among SMW may 1) differ by demographic characteristics and 2) predict alcohol use disorder, depression, and self-perceived health. A diverse sample of SMW (N=446) completed an online survey in 2020 assessing the perceived impact of legalized same-sex marriage across six social-ecological domains: 1) personal impact, 2) stigma-related concerns, 3) couple impact, 4) family support, 5) work/school impact, and 6) local social climate towards LGBTQ people. Results: Perceived impact across multiple domains differed by relationship status and sexual identity (e.g., lesbian compared to bisexual identity); only family support differed by race/ethnicity. Stigma-related concerns (e.g., experiencing or witnessing hostility or discrimination because of sexual identity, despite legalized same-sex marriage) were associated with greater odds of depression and lower odds of reporting excellent, very good, or good health. Odds of depression were lower among participants who reported higher personal impact, a greater number of family members supportive of same-sex marriage, and a more positive local social climate. Family support also predicted self-perceived health. However, participants who perceived increased support in work/school contexts after legalized same-sex marriage had higher odds of alcohol use disorder. Conclusions: Overall, findings underscore the importance of policy in improving health outcomes through reducing stigma-related concerns and improving social acceptance.

Corrigendum to 'Impact of the policy environment on substance use among sexual minority women'.

[This corrects the article PMC9262325.].

Examining the differential protective effects of women's spirituality and religiosity on alcohol and marijuana use by sexual identity.

The current study explored how religiosity and spirituality may differentially influence substance use by sexual identity based on a sample of adult sexual minority women (SMW; n = 437 lesbian; n = 323 bisexual) relative to a heterosexual comparison sample (n = 636). We examined three questions: (1) whether spirituality was differentially associated with alcohol and marijuana use by sexual identity; (2) whether religiosity was differentially associated with alcohol and marijuana use by sexual identity; (3) whether observed differences between spirituality or religiosity and substance use by sexual identity persisted after adjusting for religious environment. Measures included spirituality (importance of spirituality), religiosity (importance of religion, attending religious services), and past year substance use (alcohol use disorder [AUD], any marijuana use, and regular marijuana use). Higher levels of spirituality were associated with increased odds of AUD among both lesbian and bisexual respondents relative to heterosexuals. Higher levels of religiosity among lesbian participants were associated with increased odds of AUD relative to heterosexuals with higher levels of religiosity. Consistent with theories of minority stress, findings suggest that spirituality and religiosity are less protective for SMW than heterosexual women and, in some cases, may contribute to greater risk of substance use.

Impact of the policy environment on substance use among sexual minority women.

Background: Sexual minority women (SMW) are at greater risk for heavy episodic drinking, frequent marijuana use, and tobacco use than heterosexual women. Because past research has suggested the political and social environment may influence disparities in substance use by sexual orientation, this study examined associations of the U.S. state-level policy environment on substance use by SMW. Methods: A total of 732 SMW participants were recruited from two national online panels: a general population panel (n = 333) and a sexual minority-specific panel (n = 399). Past year substance use was defined by number of days of heavy episodic drinking (HED; 4+ drinks in a day), weekly tobacco use (once a week or more vs. less or none), and weekly marijuana use (once a week or more vs. less or none). Comprehensive state policy protection was defined by enactment of five policies protecting rights of sexual minorities. Regression models compared substance use outcomes for SMW living in states with comprehensive policy protections to SMW living in states with fewer or no protections. Models also assessed the impact of state policies related to alcohol (state monopoly on alcohol wholesale or retail sales), tobacco (state enactment of comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws) and marijuana (legalization of purchase, possession, or consumption of marijuana for recreational use). Results: Comprehensive policy protections were associated with fewer HED days. Recreational marijuana legalization was associated with higher odds of weekly use. Conclusions: Findings underscore the importance of policy protections for sexual minorities in reducing substance use, particularly HED, among SMW.

Comparing substance use outcomes by sexual identity among women: Differences using propensity score methods.

BACKGROUND: Differences in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use by sexual identity vary across samples of women recruited using different sampling methods. We used propensity score (PS) weighting methods to address two methodological questions: (1) Do disparities between sexual minority women (SMW) and heterosexual women persist when differences in risk and protective factors are similarly distributed between groups, and (2) Does accounting for SMW-specific resiliency factors impact differences between non-probability samples of SMW? METHODS: Four samples included SMW from a longitudinal study with a nonprobability sample (n = 373), a national general population panel sample (n = 373), and a national LGBTQ-specific panel sample (n = 311), as well as a national probability sample of heterosexual women (n = 446). Between-groups analyses using double-robust PS weighted models estimated differences in ATOD use under hypothetical conditions in which samples have similar risk and protective factors. RESULTS: After PS weighting, imbalance in confounders between SMW and heterosexual samples was substantially reduced, but not eliminated. In double-robust PS weighted models, SMW samples consistently had significantly greater odds of drug use than heterosexuals, with odds from 8.8 to 5.6 times greater for frequent marijuana use and 4.8-3.2 greater for other drug use. Few differences between SMW samples in ATOD outcomes or other variables remained after PS weighting. CONCLUSION: Relative to heterosexual women, disparities in marijuana and other drug use among SMW are evident regardless of sampling strategy. The results provide some reassurance about the validity of large nonprobability samples, which remain an important recruitment strategy in research with SMW.

Substance use and misuse patterns and disability status in the 2020 US National Alcohol Survey: A contributing role for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about substance use and misuse among adults with disabilities is still emerging, despite increased risk of chronic pain and mental health problems, which are in turn risk factors for substance use and misuse. OBJECTIVE: We examined substance use and misuse among adults with selected self-reported disability (versus without), controlling for sociodemographics, depression/anxiety, physical health, and chronic pain, and assessed whether associations could be attributed to chronic pain. METHODS: Data are from the nationally representative 2020 US National Alcohol Survey. Disability indicators included sensory or mobility impairment, receiving Medicare before age 65, and/or unemployment due to disability. Regression analyses determined associations of disability with past-year substance use and misuse. Mediation analyses examined the role of chronic pain. RESULTS: Approximately 18% met 1+ disability criterion, representing 42.8 million adults. Disability was associated with reduced odds of current drinking (OR = 0.77, p < 0.01), but greater odds of daily nicotine use (OR = 1.43, p < 0.01), any drug use (OR = 1.32 p < 0.01), prescription drug misuse (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001), and other drug use (OR = 2.02, p < 0.001). Disability was not associated with high-intensity drinking or marijuana use. Chronic pain accounted for 17-38% of the association between disability and nicotine use, any drug use, prescription drug misuse, and other drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicated higher rates of substance use and misuse among people with disabilities, accounting for depression/anxiety, physical health, and chronic pain, with pain being a significant mediator. Substance use screening, brief intervention, and treatment should include appropriate accommodations for disabilities, inclusive of comprehensive pain management options.

The role of recovery housing during outpatient substance use treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recovery housing generally refers to alcohol- and drug-free living environments that provide peer support for those wanting to initiate and sustain recovery from alcohol and other drug (AOD) disorders. Despite a growing evidence base for recovery housing, relatively little research has focused on how recovery housing may benefit individuals accessing outpatient substance use treatment. METHODS: Using administrative and qualitative data from individuals attending an outpatient substance use treatment program in the Midwestern United States that provides recovery housing in a structured sober living environment, this mixed methods study sought to: (1) determine whether individuals who opted to live in structured sober living during outpatient treatment (N = 138) differed from those who did not (N = 842) on demographic, clinical, or service use characteristics; (2) examine whether living in structured sober living was associated with greater likelihood of satisfactory discharge and longer lengths of stay in outpatient treatment; and (3) explore what individuals (N = 7) who used the structured sober living during outpatient treatment were hoping to gain from the experience. RESULTS: Factors associated with the use of recovery housing during outpatient treatment in multivariate models included gender, age, and receiving more services across episodes of care. Living in structured sober housing was associated with greater likelihood of satisfactory discharge and longer length of stays in outpatient treatment. Focus group participants reported needing additional structure and recovery support, with many noting that structure and accountability, learning and practicing life, coping, and other recovery skills, as well as receiving social and emotional support from others were particularly beneficial aspects of the sober living environment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the importance of safe and supportive housing during outpatient substance use treatment as well as the need for future research on how housing environments may affect engagement, retention, and outcomes among individuals accessing outpatient substance use treatment.

A scoping review of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use treatment interventions for sexual and gender minority populations.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use are among the most prevalent and important health disparities affecting sexual and gender minority (SGM; e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) populations. Although numerous government agencies and health experts have called for substance use intervention studies to address these disparities, such studies continue to be relatively rare. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review of prevention and drug treatment intervention studies for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use that were conducted with SGM adults. We searched three databases to identify pertinent English-language, peer-reviewed articles published between 1985 and 2019. RESULTS: Our search yielded 71 articles. The majority focused on sexual minority men and studied individual or group psychotherapies for alcohol, tobacco, or methamphetamine use. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the need for intervention research focused on sexual minority women and gender minority individuals and on cannabis and opioid use. There is also a need for more research that evaluates dyadic, population-level, and medication interventions.