Understanding the Shared Meaning of Recovery From Substance Use Disorders: New Findings From the What is Recovery? Study.

Background: Substance use disorder (SUD) resolution typically involves a long-term, comprehensive process of change now widely referred to as "recovery." Yet, definitions of recovery vary substantially, producing significant confusion. To support formal recovery definitions, we aimed to systematically identify recovery elements that are central to those in recovery and shared regardless of subgroup/pathway. Methods: Data were from the What is Recovery? Study, involving a diverse, national, online survey of people in recovery (N = 9341). Surveys included a 35-item recovery measure reflecting 4 domains; participants reported whether or not each element definitely belonged in their recovery definitions. Analyses examined item endorsements overall and among 30 subgroups defined a priori (by sociodemographics, substance use characteristics, and help-seeking history) to determine where items met study-specific centrality thresholds (ie, endorsement by ⩾80% and top-10 ranking, by endorsement level). We then classified items as "core" if meeting centrality thresholds both overall and for all 30 subgroups, and "prevalent" if meeting centrality thresholds overall and for 26 to 29 subgroups. Results: Four "core" recovery elements emerged, including a process of growth or development; being honest with oneself; taking responsibility for the things one can change; and reacting in a more balanced way. Four "prevalent" recovery elements also emerged, referencing the ability to enjoy life and handle negative feelings without substance use; abstinence and/or nonproblematic substance use; and living a life that contributes. Subgroups differing most in their endorsements included those reporting mild/moderate SUD severity; non-abstinent recovery; and no specialty treatment or mutual-help group attendance. Conclusions: Recovery elements identified here partially reflect some stakeholder definitions, but offer greater specificity and include novel elements (eg, personal integrity). Elements may point to areas of functioning that are damaged in the addiction process and can support an addiction-free life. Findings should inform institutional recovery definitions; SUD services and research; and communications about recovery.

Development and psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Inventory of Recovery Capital (MIRC).

BACKGROUND: Researchers have developed several instruments to measure recovery capital-the social, physical, human, and cultural resources that help people resolve alcohol and other drug problems. However, existing measures are hampered by theoretical and psychometric weaknesses. The current study reports on process and psychometric outcomes for the Multidimensional Inventory of Recovery Capital (MIRC), a novel measure of recovery capital. METHODS: We used a three-phase, mixed methods approach to develop the MIRC. Individuals who identified as having resolved alcohol problems were recruited in each phase. Phase one focused on item development, with participants providing qualitative feedback on potential items. In phase two (pilot testing) and phase three (final psychometric evaluation), participants completed revised versions of the MIRC to assess its psychometric strength and item performance. RESULTS: Phase one (n=44) resulted in significant item alteration, culminating in a 48-item pilot measure. Pilot testing analyses (n=497) resulted in the deletion or replacement of 17 items. In the final psychometric evaluation (n=482), four additional items were deleted, resulting in a 28-item MIRC comprising four subscales measuring social, physical, human, and cultural capital. The psychometric properties of the final MIRC and its subscales ranged from sound to strong, with high response variability suggesting appropriate item discrimination. CONCLUSION: Results confirm the psychometric strength of the MIRC and underscore the importance of incorporating the insights of diverse samples of people in recovery. The MIRC holds promise as an assessment tool in future research and is available for use at no cost in treatment and community-based settings.

Predictors and outcomes of online mutual-help group attendance in a national survey study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, online video platforms became the primary mode of accessing substance use-focused mutual-help group meetings, which may persist after in-person meetings are available again. This study examined the characteristics (demographic, substance use and recovery, and mutual-help group use) of attendees of online recovery support meetings, and associations of online meeting attendance with substance use outcomes, using national data (without ensured representativeness) collected before the pandemic. METHODS: Data were from the Peer Alternatives in Addiction (PAL) Study of attendees of 12-step groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing Secular Recovery (LifeRing), and SMART Recovery (SMART). The baseline sample, collected in 2015 (pre-pandemic), was 647 adults with lifetime alcohol use disorder who were surveyed online at baseline and 6-month (81%) and 12-month follow-up (83%). RESULTS: At baseline, 62% (n = 402) had attended an online mutual-help group meeting in their lifetime, and 36% (n = 236) had done so in the past 30 days. Bivariate analyses found that online meeting attendance was more likely among women than men, younger than older participants, and participants with more recent alcohol and drug use, and less abstinence self-efficacy. In addition, online meeting attendance was more likely among respondents who attended two or more different types of mutual-help groups (rather than just one type), and whose primary group was 12-step or WFS rather than LifeRing or SMART. Longitudinal analyses found an interaction between online meeting attendance (yes or no) and time on the outcomes of alcohol and total abstinence such that, compared to those who did not attend online meetings, online meeting attendees were less likely to be abstinent at baseline but were about the same on abstinence at 12 months. However, the interaction effect was attenuated when the model adjusted for mutual-help use characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The findings inform mutual-help groups, providers, and researchers' efforts to sustain and expand this resource by suggesting that online meeting attendance may have appeal and be helpful to mutual-help group members who are earlier in their recovery.

Testing a Socioecological Model of Relapse and Recovery from Alcohol Problems.

This study tests a socioecological model of relapse and recovery using latent class growth mixture modeling to identify neighborhood, social network and individual-level predictors of alcohol dependence trajectories among a large, longitudinal sample of problem drinkers recruited from substance use treatment settings. We identified four distinct alcohol dependence trajectories: Stable Recovery/Low (Class 1); Relapsing/Rising (Class 2); Late Recovery/Declining (Class 3); and Chronic/High (Class 4). Neighborhood context (poverty and density of bars), social network characteristics (less involvement with Alcoholics Anonymous [AA], continued affiliation with heavy drinkers), and individual predisposing (psychiatric severity) and need (returning to treatment) characteristics each distinguished individuals in the Relapsing/Rising class from individuals in the Stable Recovery/Low class. Social network characteristics (AA involvement and continued affiliation with heavy drinkers) were the primary distinguishing factors for individuals in the Chronic/High class compared to the Late Recovery/Declining class. Study findings can be used to promote recovery and help prevent relapse by: guiding development of community-level interventions to improve social and physical environments; identifying potentially modifiable factors (social network support for sobriety, participation in self-help) to reduce negative consequences among problem drinkers who remain in high-risk neighborhoods; and contributing to ongoing discussions about new and continued licensing of alcohol outlets and regulation of alcohol sales to prevent alcohol problems in high-risk areas and among high-risk people.

Randomized Trial of an Innovative Electronic Screening and Brief Intervention for Reducing Drinking Among Women of Childbearing Age.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of an innovative, self-administered, electronic Screening and Brief Intervention (e-SBI) in English and Spanish, "DrinkWise," for reducing drinking among nonpregnant women of childbearing age. METHODS: A parallel design, phase 1 trial included 185 nonpregnant women reporting risky drinking (8 or more drinks in a week or 3 or more drinks in a day) who were recruited from 2 publicly funded Nutritional Assistance for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program sites in the United States from 2016 to 2017. Participants were 18 to 44 years in age, 75% of Hispanic ethnicity, 44% Spanish speakers, 30% had not completed high school, and 15% were currently breastfeeding. Participants were randomized to receive (intervention condition, n = 99) or not receive (control condition, no intervention, n = 86) DrinkWise and followed at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Women receiving DrinkWise had greater reductions in the odds of self-reported weekly alcohol use (odds ratio [OR] = 0.22, SE = 0.12, P < 0.01) and heavy alcohol use (OR = 0.23, SE = 0.14, P < 0.05) at 6-month follow-up than controls, with no group differences at 3-month follow-up. Compared with heavy drinking controls, heavy drinkers receiving DrinkWise showed a trend (P = 0.06) for greater reductions in drink (pour) size from 3- to 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DrinkWise may be efficacious in reducing drinking among low-income women of childbearing age and provides a low-cost tool for increasing access to recommended SBI among childbearing-age women. Studies should continue to build DrinkWise's evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02337361.

A longitudinal study of the comparative efficacy of Women for Sobriety, LifeRing, SMART Recovery, and 12-step groups for those with AUD.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of 12-step groups, most people reporting a prior alcohol use disorder (AUD) do not sustain involvement in such groups at beneficial levels. This highlights the need for research on other mutual help groups that address alcohol problems and may attract those who avoid 12-step groups. The current study addresses this need, offering outcome data from the first longitudinal, comparative study of 12-step groups and their alternatives: The Peer ALlternatives for Addiction (PAL) Study. METHODS: Adults with a lifetime AUD were surveyed at baseline (N=647), 6months (81% response rate) and 12months (83% response rate). Members of the largest known secular mutual help alternatives, namely Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing, and SMART, were recruited in collaboration with group directors; current 12-step attendees were recruited from an online meeting hub. Online surveys assessed demographic and clinical variables; mutual help involvement; and alcohol and drug use and severity. Analyses involved multivariate logistic GEEs separately modelling alcohol abstinence, alcohol problems, and total abstinence across 6 and 12months. Key predictors were baseline primary group affiliation (PGA); primary group involvement (PGI) at both baseline and 6months; and the interaction between baseline PGA and 6-month PGI. The critical effects of interest were the interactions, expressing whether associations between changes in PGI from baseline to 6months and substance use outcomes differed by primary group. RESULTS: None of the interactions between baseline PGA and 6-month PGI were significant, suggesting no differences in the efficacy of WFS, LifeRing, or SMART, vs. 12-step groups. Nevertheless, some PGA main effects emerged. Compared to 12-step members, those identifying SMART as their primary group at baseline fared worse across outcomes, and those affiliating with LifeRing showed lower odds of total abstinence. Still, these effects became nonsignificant when controlling for baseline alcohol recovery goal, suggesting that any group differences may be explained by selection of those with weaker abstinence motivation into LifeRing and (especially) SMART. CONCLUSIONS: This study makes a valuable contribution in view of the extremely limited evidence on mutual help alternatives. Results tentatively suggest that WFS, LifeRing, and SMART are as effective as 12-step groups for those with AUDs, and that this population has the best odds of success when committing to lifetime total abstinence. An optimal care plan may thus involve facilitating involvement in a broad array of mutual help groups and supporting abstinence motivation.

Independent and Interactive Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Social Network Characteristics on Problem Drinking after Treatment.

Socioecological approaches to public health problems like addiction emphasize the importance of person-environment interactions. Neighborhood and social network characteristics may influence the likelihood of relapse among individuals in recovery, but these factors have been understudied, particularly with respect to conceptualizing social network characteristics as moderators of neighborhood disadvantage. Drawing from a larger prospective study of individuals recruited from outpatient treatment (N=451) and interviewed 1, 3, 5, and 7 years later, the aim of this study was to examine the independent and interactive effects of neighborhood and social network characteristics on continued problem drinking after treatment. Models using generalized estimating equations controlling for demographic and other risk factors found the number of heavy drinkers in one's network increases risk of relapse, with the effects being significantly stronger among those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods than among those in non-disadvantaged neighborhoods. No independent effects were found for neighborhood disadvantage or for the number of network members supporting reduced drinking. Future research is needed to examine potential protective factors in neighborhoods which may offset socioeconomic disadvantage as well as to investigate the functions that network members serve in helping to improve long-term treatment outcomes.

What Happens After Treatment? Long-Term Effects of Continued Substance Use, Psychiatric Problems and Help-Seeking on Social Status of Alcohol-Dependent Individuals.

PURPOSE: We examined whether alcohol-dependent individuals with sustained substance use or psychiatric problems after completing treatment were more likely to experience low social status and whether continued help-seeking would improve outcomes. SHORT SUMMARY: Ongoing alcohol, drug and psychiatric problems after completing treatment were associated with increased odds of low social status (unemployment, unstable housing and/or living in high-poverty neighborhood) over 7 years. The impact of drug problems declined over time, and there were small, delayed benefits of AA attendance on social status. METHOD: Alcohol-dependent individuals sampled from public and private treatment programs (N = 491; 62% male) in Northern California were interviewed at treatment entry and 1, 3, 5 and 7 years later. Random effects models tested relationships between problem severity (alcohol, drug and psychiatric problems) and help-seeking (attending specialty alcohol/drug treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous, AA) with low social status (unemployment, unstable housing and/or living in a high-poverty neighborhood) over time. RESULTS: The proportion of participants experiencing none of the indicators of low social status increased between baseline and the 1-year follow-up and remained stable thereafter. Higher alcohol problem scores and having any drug and/or psychiatric problems in the years after treatment were associated with increased odds of low social status over time. An interaction of drug problems with time indicated the impact of drug problems on social status declined over the 7-year period. Both treatment-seeking and AA attendance were associated with increased odds of low social status, although lagged models suggested there were small, delayed benefits of AA attendance on improved social status over time. CONCLUSION: Specialty addiction treatment alone was not sufficient to have positive long-term impacts on social status and social integration of most alcohol-dependent people.

Effects of Distance to Treatment on Subsequent Alcohol Consumption.

BACKGROUND: Distance and travel time are barriers to attending and completing drug and alcohol treatment. Few studies have examined proximity to treatment in relation to long-term outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Aims were to examine effects of distance to treatment on alcohol consumption in the year after treatment intake; assess moderation of distance effects by treatment type; and test mediators of effects of distance to treatment on later alcohol use. METHODS: Data from clients in inpatient and outpatient alcohol treatment programs in California (n=560) were used in linear regression models. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between treatment type and distance on later drinking, with a significant positive association of distance to treatment with alcohol use after treatment for inpatient clients only. Among inpatient clients, none of the mediators significantly explained the relationship between a longer distance to treatment and greater subsequent alcohol use. CONCLUSION: Inpatient clients may benefit from customized post-treatment recommendations to identify recovery resources near home.

Effects of Treatment Type on Alcohol Consumption Partially Mediated by Alcoholics Anonymous Attendance.

BACKGROUND: As insurance coverage, funding sources and venues for drug and alcohol treatment evolve in the United States, it is important to assess how the type of treatment received may impact long-term outcomes. The current study aims were to examine effects of treatment type on alcohol consumption in the year after treatment intake and to test mediators of effects of treatment type on later alcohol use. METHODS: Longitudinal data from clients in inpatient and outpatient alcohol treatment programs in California (n = 560) were used in ordinary least squares path analysis adjusting for respondent characteristics typically associated with both treatment completion and alcohol use. The primary outcome was amount of alcohol consumed in the 12 months after treatment entry; hypothesized mediators were treatment duration and participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). RESULTS: Despite higher baseline problem severity and a shorter treatment duration, inpatient clients consumed less alcohol after treatment than outpatient clients (B [95% CI] = -0.95 [-1.67, -0.23]). AA involvement was a significant mediator of the relationship between treatment type and alcohol consumption, with inpatient clients being more involved in AA and also drinking less after treatment than outpatient clients; the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect (B = -0.20) was entirely below zero (-0.43 to -0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient clients may benefit from customized posttreatment recommendations to identify additional resources to assist in the recovery process during the first year after treatment.

Comparison of 12-step groups to mutual help alternatives for AUD in a large, national study: Differences in membership characteristics and group participation, cohesion, and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Many studies suggest that participation in 12-step groups contributes to better recovery outcomes, but people often object to such groups and most do not sustain regular involvement. Yet, research on alternatives to 12-step groups is very sparse. The present study aimed to extend the knowledge base on mutual help group alternatives for those with an alcohol use disorder (AUD), sampling from large, active, abstinence-focused groups including Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing, and SMART Recovery (SMART). This paper presents a cross-sectional analysis of this longitudinal study, using baseline data to describe the profile and participation characteristics of attendees of these groups in comparison to 12-step members. METHODS: Data from participants 18 and over with a lifetime AUD (N=651) were collected using Web-based surveys. Members of alternative 12-step groups were recruited in collaboration with group directors, who helped publicize the study by emailing meeting conveners and attendees and posting announcements on social media. A comparison group of current (past-30-day) 12-step attendees was recruited from an online meeting hub for recovering persons. Interested parties were directed to a Webpage where they were screened, and eligible participants completed an online survey assessing demographic and clinical variables; in-person and online mutual help involvement; and group satisfaction and cohesion. Analyses involved comparing those identifying WFS, SMART, and LifeRing as their primary group to 12-step members on the above characteristics. RESULTS: Compared to 12-step members, members of the mutual help alternatives were less religious and generally higher on education and income. WFS and LifeRing members were also older, more likely to be married, and lower on lifetime drug and psychiatric severity; meanwhile, LifeRing and SMART members were less likely to endorse the most stringent abstinence goal. Finally, despite lower levels of in-person meeting attendance, members of all the 12-step alternatives showed equivalent activity involvement and higher levels of satisfaction and cohesion, compared to 12-step members. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest differences across 12-step groups and their alternatives that may be relevant when advising clients on a choice of mutual help group. Meanwhile, findings for high levels of participation, satisfaction, and cohesion among members of the mutual help alternatives suggest promise for these groups in addressing addiction problems.

Developing an Experiential Definition of Recovery: Participatory Research With Recovering Substance Abusers From Multiple Pathways.

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.

Consistency between beliefs and behavior regarding use of substances in recovery.

This paper addresses the assumption that pathways to recovery from substance abuse and dependence, and the language used to define one's relationship to substances, translate to actual beliefs and behaviors in terms of substance use. We draw on social representation theory, and use data from a large web-based study (n=9,341) whose goal was to understand how individuals in recovery define what recovery means to them. We often hear people say that they are "in recovery," and present findings now provide empirical evidence of the prevalent meanings of this ubiquitous expression. The belief that recovery is abstinence was broadly held in our sample, especially among those exposed to treatment and 12-step self-help groups and who define themselves as in recovery-and most (but not all) of such individuals are complete abstainers (no alcohol or drugs). In contrast, among the "self-changers" who did not attend treatment or self-help groups, the most common self-definition was used to have an alcohol or drug problem but don't any more, half of whom believe that recovery is abstinence while half do not, and only one-third are abstainers. Findings are of public health relevance, as it is estimated that among American adults alone, 10% report having had alcohol or drug problems but no longer do (The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS), 2012). In line with the central concepts of social representation theory, people's pathways to recovery have a strong effect on how they define themselves and their behaviors and beliefs, but it is not universal.

Recovery definitions: Do they change?

BACKGROUND: The term "recovery" is widely used in the substance abuse literature and clinical settings, but data have not been available to empirically validate how recovery is defined by individuals who are themselves in recovery. The "What Is Recovery?" project developed a 39-item definition of recovery based on a large nationwide online survey of individuals in recovery. The objective of this paper is to report on the stability of those definitions one to two years later. METHODS: To obtain a sample for studying recovery definitions that reflected the different pathways to recovery, the parent study involved intensive outreach. Follow-up interviews (n=1237) were conducted online and by telephone among respondents who consented to participate in follow-up studies. Descriptive analyses considered endorsement of individual recovery items at both surveys, and t-tests of summary scores studied significant change in the sample overall and among key subgroups. To assess item reliability, Cronbach's alpha was estimated. RESULTS: Rates of endorsement of individual items at both interviews was above 90% for a majority of the recovery elements, and there was about as much transition into endorsement as out of endorsement. Statistically significant t-test scores were of modest magnitude, and reliability statistics were high (ranging from .782 to .899). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal analyses found little evidence of meaningful change in recovery definitions at follow-up. Results thus suggest that the recovery definitions developed in the parent "What Is Recovery?" survey represent stable definitions of recovery that can be used to guide service provision in Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care.

Multi-source recruitment strategies for advancing addiction recovery research beyond treated samples.

BACKGROUND: The lack of established sampling frames makes reaching individuals in recovery from substance problems difficult. Although general population studies are most generalizable, the low prevalence of individuals in recovery makes this strategy costly and inefficient. Though more efficient, treatment samples are biased. AIMS: To describe multi-source recruitment for capturing participants from heterogeneous pathways to recovery; assess which sources produced the most respondents within subgroups; and compare treatment and non-treatment samples to address generalizability. RESULTS: Family/friends, Craigslist, social media and non-12-step groups produced the most respondents from hard-to-reach groups, such as racial minorities and treatment-naïve individuals. Recovery organizations yielded twice as many African-Americans and more rural dwellers, while social media yielded twice as many young people than other sources. Treatment samples had proportionally fewer females and older individuals compared to non-treated samples. CONCLUSIONS: Future research on recovery should utilize previously neglected recruiting strategies to maximize the representativeness of samples.

How do recovery definitions distinguish recovering individuals? Five typologies.

BACKGROUND: Six percent of American adults say they are "in recovery" from an alcohol or drug problem yet only a scant emergent literature has begun to ask how they define "recovery" or explored whether there is heterogeneity among their definitions. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the "What is Recovery?" online survey employed latent class analysis (LCA) to identify typologies of study participants based on their actual endorsement of 39 recovery elements and to compare the composition of these typologies in terms of distinguishing personal characteristics. RESULTS: A five-class solution provided the best fit and conceptual representation for the recovery definitions. Classes were labeled 12-step traditionalist (n=4912); 12-step enthusiast (n=2014); secular (n=980); self-reliant (n=1040); and atypical (n=382) based on patterns of endorsement of the recovery elements. Abstinence, spiritual, and social interaction elements differentiated the classes most (as did age and recovery duration but to a lesser extent). Although levels and patterns of endorsement to the elements varied by class, a rank-ordering of the top 10 elements indicated that four elements were endorsed by all five classes: being honest with myself, handling negative feelings without using, being able to enjoy life, and process of growth and development. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the LCA demonstrate the diversity of meanings, and varying degrees of identification with, specific elements of recovery. As others have found, multiple constituents are invested in how recovery is defined and this has ramifications for professional, personal, and cultural processes related to how strategies to promote recovery are implemented.

Feasibility and acceptability of a novel, computerized screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol and sweetened beverage use in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Recommended screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol use during pregnancy is impeded by high patient loads and limited resources in public health settings. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and validity of a new self-administered, single-session, bilingual, computerized Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) program for alcohol and sugar sweetened beverage (SSB) use in pregnancy. METHODS: We developed and tested the computerized SBI program at a public health clinic with 290 pregnant women. Feasibility, acceptability, and validity measures were included in the program which had several modules, including those on demographics, health and beverage use. Time to complete the program and user experience items were used to determine program feasibility and acceptability. Validity analyses compared proportions of prenatal alcohol use identified by the program versus in-person screening by clinic staff. RESULTS: Most program users (87%, n = 251) completed the entire program; 91% (n = 263) completed the key screening and brief intervention modules. Most users also completed the program in ten to fifteen minutes. Program users reported that the program was easy to use (97%), they learned something new (88%), and that they would share what they learned with others (83%) and with their doctors or clinic staff (76%). Program acceptability did not differ by age, education, or type of beverage intervention received. The program identified alcohol use in pregnancy among 21% of users, a higher rate than the 13% (p < .01) found via screening by clinic staff. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized Screening and Brief Intervention for alcohol and SSB use in public health clinics is feasible and acceptable to English and Spanish speaking pregnant women and can efficiently identify prenatal alcohol use.

Elements that define recovery: the experiential perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Although recovery increasingly guides substance use disorder services and policy, definitions of recovery continue to lack specificity, thereby hindering measure development and research. The goal of this study was to move the substance use disorders field beyond broad definitions by empirically identifying the domains and specific elements of recovery as experienced by persons in recovery from diverse pathways. METHOD: An Internet-based survey was completed by 9,341 individuals (54% female) who self-identified as being in recovery, recovered, in medication-assisted recovery, or as having had a problem with alcohol or drugs (but no longer do). Respondents were recruited via extensive outreach with treatment and recovery organizations, electronic media, and self-help groups. The survey included 47 recovery elements developed through qualitative work followed by an iterative reduction process. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using split-half samples, followed by sensitivity analyses for key sample groupings. RESULTS: Four recovery domains with 35 recovery elements emerged: abstinence in recovery, essentials of recovery, enriched recovery, and spirituality of recovery. The four-factor structure was robust regardless of length of recovery, 12-step or treatment exposure, and current substance use status. Four uncommon elements did not load on any factor but are presented to indicate the diversity of definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Our empirical findings offer specific items that can be used in evaluating recovery-oriented systems of care. Researchers studying recovery should include measures that extend beyond substance use and encompass elements such as those examined here--e.g., self-care, concern for others, personal growth, and developing ways of being that sustain change in substance use.

Volume and type of alcohol during early pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage.

BACKGROUND: Research on alcohol consumption during pregnancy and miscarriage spans over three decades, yet the relationship is still not well-understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between volume and type of alcohol consumed during pregnancy in relation to miscarriage. METHODS: We utilized data from a population-based cohort study of pregnant women (n = 1061) of which 172 (16%) women had a miscarriage. Upon study entry, participants were asked about their alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Based on the average number of drinks per week, women were categorized into one of three categories: four or more drinks per week (n = 32, 3%), less than four drinks per week (n = 403, 38%), and no alcohol intake (n = 626, 59%). In addition, women were categorized by the type of alcohol beverage they consumed: beer only (n = 47, 4%), spirits only (n = 56, 5%), wine only (n = 160, 15%), or a combination of two or more types of alcohol (n = 172, 16%). RESULTS: A significant increased risk of miscarriage (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38, 5.10) was found for women who drank four or more drinks a week. Our findings also suggest the relationship between alcohol intake during pregnancy and miscarriage is strongest for miscarriage occurring prior to 10 weeks of gestation. In addition, women who drank only spirits had more than a two-fold increased risk of miscarriage compared to women who abstained (aHR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.32, 3.81). Conclusions/Importance: Future research assessing the factors that may contribute to an increased risk of miscarriage should consider the type of alcohol consumed.