Not Two Sides of the Same Coin: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Post-Treatment Abstinence and Relapse.

Purpose: Substance use disorder (SUD) can be a chronic relapsing condition with poor treatment outcomes. Studies exploring factors associated with abstinence or relapse after treatment are often quantitative in nature, applying linear statistical approaches, while abstinence and relapse result from non-linear, complex, dynamic and synergistic processes. This study aims to explore these underlying dynamics using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a mixed methods approach to further our understanding of factors contributing to post-treatment abstinence and relapse. Patients and Methods: In a prospective study, we gathered both qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to post-treatment substance use and the factors linked to substance use outcomes. These factors encompassed psychiatric comorbidity, intellectual disability, social disintegration, post-treatment support, and engagement in activities among patients who had undergone inpatient treatment for severe SUD (n = 58). QCA, a set-theoretic approach that considers the complex interplay of multiple conditions, was applied to discern which factors were necessary or sufficient for the occurrence of either abstinence or relapse. Results: We found two solutions predicting abstinence, and five for relapse. Post-treatment conditions (support and engagement in activities) were important for retaining abstinence. For relapse, individual baseline characteristics (intellectual disability, social disintegration, psychiatric comorbidity) combined with (post-)treatment factors (post-treatment support, activities) were important. Conclusion: Although abstinence and relapse represent opposing outcomes, they each exhibit distinct dynamics. To gain a comprehensive understanding of these dynamics, it is advisable to examine them as separate outcomes. For clinical practice, it can be worthwhile to recognize that fostering the conditions conducive to abstinence may differ from preventing the factors that trigger relapse.

This study explores why some people who struggle with addiction stay clean after treatment, while others relapse. Previous studies often used traditional statistical methods, with inconclusive results due to their inability to capture the complexity of this process. To address this, we used a different approach called qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). We collected information from 58 individuals who received inpatient treatment for their addiction. We looked at different factors like mental health problems, intellectual disability, the support they got from professionals and their social network, and whether they kept themselves busy with activities. We investigated how these factors are related to staying clean or relapse. With the help of QCA, we analyzed how these factors work together to cause either drug-free living or relapse. We found that staying clean was strongly linked to getting support after treatment and being involved in activities like hobbies or work. On the other hand, relapse was more likely in people with personal problems, like intellectual disabilities and mental health problems, when support and activities were lacking after treatment. In summary, our study indicates that staying clean and relapse are different processes with different factors at play. Helping someone stay clean may therefore require different strategies than preventing relapse. This insight can guide development of more personalized healthcare for individuals dealing with addiction.

Using the Recovery Capital Model to Explore Barriers to and Facilitators of Recovery in Individuals with Substance Use Disorder, Psychiatric Comorbidity and Mild-to-Borderline Intellectual Disability: A Case Series.

Recovery capital (RC) encompasses the wide range of resources individuals can employ to recover from Substance Use Disorder (SUD). It consists of five subdomains: human, social, cultural, financial, and community RC. Negative recovery capital (NRC) represents the obstacles to recovery. Research on (N)RC in complex multimorbid populations is scarce. This study offers an initial exploration of the viability of (N)RC in three individuals with SUD, psychiatric comorbidities, and an intellectual disability (a triple diagnosis) in inpatient addiction treatment. We collected case file data, ranked recovery goals, and conducted follow-up interviews. The data were subjected to template analysis, using (N)RC domains as codes. All domains were prevalent and relevant, showing dynamic and reciprocal effects, influenced by critical life events acting as catalysts. Notably, during treatment, patients prioritized individual skill development despite challenges in other domains. RC emerges as a valuable concept for mapping recovery barriers and facilitators in individuals with a triple diagnosis, serving as an alternative to the medical model and complementing the biopsychosocial model. It provides a systematic framework to assess critical factors for recovery in complex cases and accordingly align interventions. Future studies should explore the intersections of NRC domains and the dynamic nature of (N)RC to enhance the understanding of the challenges faced by individuals with a triple diagnosis.

Barriers and Facilitators to Seek Help for Substance Use Disorder among Dutch Physicians: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Substance use disorders (SUDs) among physicians affect their health, quality of life, but potentially also their quality of care. Despite the availability of effective specific Physician Health Programs (PHPs), physicians with SUD often experience barriers when seeking professional help. Therefore, we studied barriers and facilitators when seeking help for SUD among physicians from a multiple perspective approach. METHODS: A qualitative design was adopted for 2 sub-studies. First, answers of 2 open-ended questions (about anticipated barriers and facilitators) of an existing questionnaire were analyzed. This questionnaire was filled out by 1,685 general physicians (response rate = 47%). The answers of these open-ended questions were coded inductively. Second, 21 semi-structured interviews (about experienced barriers and facilitators) were performed with physician SUD-patients, significant others, and PHP employees. Themes identified in the first sub-study were used to deductively code the interview transcripts. Results were reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. RESULTS: Barriers were found at the level of the individual physician (negative feelings and lack of disease awareness), whereas facilitators were found at the level of social relationships (confrontation with SUD and social support) and health services (supportive approach, good accessibility, and positive image of services). The interviews emphasized the importance of nonjudgmental confrontation by social relationships in the process of seeking help for SUD. CONCLUSION: Physicians with SUD face barriers when seeking help for SUD mostly at the level of the individual physician. Health services and people around physicians with SUD could facilitate the help-seeking process by offering confidential and nonpunitive support. Future studies should explore whether the barriers and facilitators identified in this study also hold for other mental health issues.