Evidence Based Practices
We know that this model of assisting people seeking recovery is effective and there is strong evidence that the Recovery Community Organization model works! |
The Center for Recovery and Wellness Resources focuses on residents of the greater Houston metropolitan area who are in recovery or seeking recovery from alcohol and/or other drug problems, as well as their family members, significant others, friends and allies. Recovery is more than abstinence from alcohol and drugs--it is about building a full and productive life in the community. We can be especially helpful to people whose lives have deteriorated significantly as a result of their disease--those with very low recovery capital. Recovery capital is the resources an individual brings to recovery including housing, employment, mental and physical health, and educational attainment. In order to sustain recovery, it is vital that the people build stable, secure lives. Many of us had burned the bridges that allow for a contingency plan--families may no longer be willing to lend a hand or open their doors, employers may not rehire, and physical health may have deteriorated. These are everyday occurrence for the people who we see.
For too many people, addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition--50% of people in recovery report four or more abstinent periods of one month or longer followed by a return to active addiction prior to their current abstinence.[1] There is strong evidence that peer recovery support services, such as those provided by CRWR, help build strong and healthy lives and are highly effective. Yet the publicly funded managed care system does not generally provide support services—it allows one inpatient, two-week treatment episode per year. The effectiveness of the various components of our work has been documented by a wide variety of research projects. Below is a sampling of the numerous and extensive studies that show the effectiveness of each of the peer recovery support services we provide:
It is clear that without additional help, many individuals will continue to suffer from addiction simply because it is an illness that is not being treated properly. Specifically, though drug dependence exhibits characteristics similar to other chronic illnesses with similar treatment adherence and relapse rates, it is usually treated as an acute illness in our region.
------
[1] Laudet, A. and White, W. (2004b) An exploration of relapse patterns among former poly-substance users. 132nd Annual Meeting of the Amer. Public Health Association, Washington DC.
[2] Jason, L.A., Davis, M.I., & Ferrari, J.R., (2007). The need for substance abuse after-care: Longitudinal analysis of Oxford House. Addiction Behaviors, 32, 803-818.
[3] Gruber, K.J., & Fleetwood, T.W. (2004). In-home continuing care services for substance use affected families. Substance Use & Misuse, 39, 1370-1403.
[4] Humphreys, K., Moos, R.H., & Finney, J.W. (1995). Two pathways out of drinking problems without professional treatment. Addiction Behaviors, 20, 427-441.
[5] Pringle, J.L., Edmondston, L.A., Holland, C.L., Kirisci, L., Emptage, N., Balavage, V.K., et al. (2002). The role of wrap around services in retention and outcome in substance abuse treatment: Findings from the Wrap Around Services Impact Study. Addiction Disorders and Their Treatment, 1 (4), 109-118.
[6] Humphreys, K., Wing, S., McCarty, D., Chappel, J., Gallant, L., Haberle, B., et al. (2004). Self-help organizations for alcohol and drug problems: toward evidence-based practice and policy. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26, 151-158.
[7] Jason, L.A., Olson, B.D., Ferrari, J.R., & Lo Sasso, A.T. (2006). Communal housing settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health, 96 (10), 1727-1729.
[8] Scott, C.K., Dennis, M.L., & Foss, M.A. (2005). Utilizing recovery management checkups to shorten the cycle of relapse, treatment reentry, and recovery. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 78, 325-338.
[9] McKay, J.R. (2005). Is there a case for extended interventions for alcohol and drug use disorders? Addiction, 100 (11), 1594-1610.
[10] Fiorentine, R., & Hillhouse, M. (2000). Drug treatment and 12-step program participation: The additive effects of integrated recovery activities. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18 (1), 65-74.
[11] Zarkin, G.A., Bray, J.W., Mitra, D., Cisler, R.A., & Kivlahan, D.F. (2005). Cost methodology of COMBINE. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 15, 50-55.
For too many people, addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition--50% of people in recovery report four or more abstinent periods of one month or longer followed by a return to active addiction prior to their current abstinence.[1] There is strong evidence that peer recovery support services, such as those provided by CRWR, help build strong and healthy lives and are highly effective. Yet the publicly funded managed care system does not generally provide support services—it allows one inpatient, two-week treatment episode per year. The effectiveness of the various components of our work has been documented by a wide variety of research projects. Below is a sampling of the numerous and extensive studies that show the effectiveness of each of the peer recovery support services we provide:
- People with low recovery capital, coupled with high disease severity and high levels of social supports provided by sober living communities have a substantial impact on long-term recovery.[2] CRWR: We work with people with very low recovery capital including people who are homeless and people exiting the criminal justice system. We provide transitional living for women who are actively engaged with a Recovery Coach.
- Providing social supports for people in recovery as well as family members and other allies helps maintain recovery.[3],[4] CRWR: We work with people in recovery and family members and provide social supports including support groups and community events. We encourage and support strong linkages with other social supports.
- Providing comprehensive services helps maintain recovery and strong social supports also improve recovery outcomes.[5] CRWR: We provide strong, comprehensive supports including peer coaching, substance abuse education, and support groups and case management.
- Peer-recovery support is effective in supporting recovery.[6] Long term peer recovery support services can result in significantly lower substance use, significantly higher monthly income, and significantly lower incarceration rates than those who receive typical “one-shot” acute-care treatment.[7] CRWR: We are governed by and staffed by people in long term recovery. Our model is by and for people in recovery.
- Recovery coaches, mutual aid societies, and social and community supports can achieve long-term recovery.[8]
- Recovery check-ups and active linkages (such as telephone-based support and checkups) to recovery supports following acute care treatment are important in maintaining recovery.[9]
- People who participate in both treatment and recovery support groups had better long-term recovery outcomes than people who used either service alone.[10]
- Cost savings are associated with a chronic care model when compared to an acute care model.[11]
It is clear that without additional help, many individuals will continue to suffer from addiction simply because it is an illness that is not being treated properly. Specifically, though drug dependence exhibits characteristics similar to other chronic illnesses with similar treatment adherence and relapse rates, it is usually treated as an acute illness in our region.
------
[1] Laudet, A. and White, W. (2004b) An exploration of relapse patterns among former poly-substance users. 132nd Annual Meeting of the Amer. Public Health Association, Washington DC.
[2] Jason, L.A., Davis, M.I., & Ferrari, J.R., (2007). The need for substance abuse after-care: Longitudinal analysis of Oxford House. Addiction Behaviors, 32, 803-818.
[3] Gruber, K.J., & Fleetwood, T.W. (2004). In-home continuing care services for substance use affected families. Substance Use & Misuse, 39, 1370-1403.
[4] Humphreys, K., Moos, R.H., & Finney, J.W. (1995). Two pathways out of drinking problems without professional treatment. Addiction Behaviors, 20, 427-441.
[5] Pringle, J.L., Edmondston, L.A., Holland, C.L., Kirisci, L., Emptage, N., Balavage, V.K., et al. (2002). The role of wrap around services in retention and outcome in substance abuse treatment: Findings from the Wrap Around Services Impact Study. Addiction Disorders and Their Treatment, 1 (4), 109-118.
[6] Humphreys, K., Wing, S., McCarty, D., Chappel, J., Gallant, L., Haberle, B., et al. (2004). Self-help organizations for alcohol and drug problems: toward evidence-based practice and policy. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26, 151-158.
[7] Jason, L.A., Olson, B.D., Ferrari, J.R., & Lo Sasso, A.T. (2006). Communal housing settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health, 96 (10), 1727-1729.
[8] Scott, C.K., Dennis, M.L., & Foss, M.A. (2005). Utilizing recovery management checkups to shorten the cycle of relapse, treatment reentry, and recovery. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 78, 325-338.
[9] McKay, J.R. (2005). Is there a case for extended interventions for alcohol and drug use disorders? Addiction, 100 (11), 1594-1610.
[10] Fiorentine, R., & Hillhouse, M. (2000). Drug treatment and 12-step program participation: The additive effects of integrated recovery activities. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18 (1), 65-74.
[11] Zarkin, G.A., Bray, J.W., Mitra, D., Cisler, R.A., & Kivlahan, D.F. (2005). Cost methodology of COMBINE. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 15, 50-55.
Web Hosting by StartLogic