There are many factors that research has shown are important to achieving and sustaining recovery. Among the most important factors is motivation to quit alcohol and other drugs.
There are many factors that research has shown are important to achieving and sustaining recovery. Among the most important factors is motivation to quit alcohol and other drugs.
l
In prior work, authors of this study Polcin and Korcha, found that among members of recovery residences– described below in more detail – the benefits someone believes he/she will get from being abstinent (e.g., ability to rebuild relationships) are related to positive recovery outcomes, but more weakly than the costs they feel abstinence will have for them (e.g., will be difficult to relax or have fun).
In this study, the authors conducted focus groups with the staff of recovery residences to explore motivation for abstinence in residents in order to offer directions for future research and to help potentially identify ways to enhance motivation for abstinence among individuals in, or seeking, recovery.
Authors conducted two focus groups with staff from recovery residences in California. Although they vary in their rules and policies as well as the services they provide, recovery residences are group homes where individuals are usually required to remain abstinent, encouraged to attend mutual-help meetings, and supported in their efforts to obtain employment or engage in school.
Although detail on focus group participants was somewhat limited, authors noted that a majority of participants were men who were in recovery themselves. In these particular recovery residences, the residences generally had a “zero-tolerance” policy around alcohol and other drug use. In other words, residents who drank or used drugs would be asked to leave, and linked with treatment, for example. They also required residents to attend 12-step mutual-help meetings.
On average, residents stayed in the recovery residences for about 5 months. Both focus groups were recorded and transcribed to text. See the box below for the content areas covered by the focus groups.
Following transcription, two members of the research team identified dominant themes from the text, resolved any discrepancies between their themes, and created a set of finalized themes from both focus groups.
Content areas covered by the focus groups:
Participants felt that residents’ motivation was positively influenced by drug testing and the recovery residence zero-tolerance substance use policies.
In addition, they felt that various forms of external pressure (from the legal system or family, for example) served as motivators for abstinence among their residents.
In addition, focus group participants described a general transition from being motivated for abstinence by consequences of using alcohol and other drugs (e.g., “deficit motivation”) to using the benefits of abstinence as a strategy to maintain or enhance motivation (e.g., being able to maintain a job).
Regarding social support, participants identified fellow residents (i.e., peers) as powerful tools in helping keep each other motivated for abstinence:
Although support specifically from family and friends was part of the initial list of questions, responses pertaining to this question were either not reported in the findings or not discussed in focus groups.
Regarding reactions to authors’ previous quantitative studies, participants noted the potential benefits of smaller vs. larger social networks, and felt generally that recovery residences may be a poorer fit for individuals high in psychiatric severity such as those with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. These individuals, they felt, may need a more flexible living situation, particularly with respect to their generally rigid policies around relapse.
Participants were unable to provide insights as to the added influence of perceived abstinence benefits for those who are less involved with mutual-help groups as the prompt led primarily to a discussion of the benefits of mutual-help involvement more generally among residents.
In treatment and recovery, motivation is a complex concept with many sides including perceived costs and benefits of abstinence as well as perceived costs and benefits of substance use. This understanding is consistent with a “decisional balance”, an exercise that allows individuals to consider the pros and cons of change and the pros and cons of not changing (see here).
Focus groups like those conducted in this study, and the rich qualitative data they provide, may increase knowledge and lead to more effective ways of addressing low motivation for abstinence and recovery.
One unique addition of this study to scientific research is the potential importance of peer relationships in helping recovery residents maintain abstinence motivation to help sustain recovery. Other studies on 12-step mutual-help have shown that the benefits of attendance may be explained by enhanced ability to help increase the number of people in one’s social circle that are supportive of their recovery (see here).
It is possible that the positive influence of this recovery peer support on enhanced abstinence might be explained by its ability to help maintain motivation for abstinence as described by focus group participants (e.g., checking in if a fellow resident is not doing well). This possibility might be leveraged in treatment and recovery support settings.
Next steps potentially include testing the primary hypothesis that emerged from the focus groups: Does residing in a recovery residence promote increased likelihood of sustained abstinence by providing greater access to peer support which helps enhance abstinence motivation over time?
To test this question, researchers could compare abstinence rates of recovery residents randomized to receive either a) resident peer support group in addition to the standard recovery residence or b) standard recovery residence services alone, without the additional support group. Then, if residents randomized to engage with the additional peer support group had better abstinence rates, researchers could examine whether those enhanced outcomes were explained by increases in abstinence motivation over time (e.g., do peer support group members report increases in abstinence motivation compared to non-members, and does that increase in motivation predict enhanced likelihood of abstinence).
Polcin, D. L., & Korcha, R. (2015). Motivation to maintain sobriety among residents of sober living recovery homes. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 6, 103-111. doi:10.2147/SAR.S89361
l
In prior work, authors of this study Polcin and Korcha, found that among members of recovery residences– described below in more detail – the benefits someone believes he/she will get from being abstinent (e.g., ability to rebuild relationships) are related to positive recovery outcomes, but more weakly than the costs they feel abstinence will have for them (e.g., will be difficult to relax or have fun).
In this study, the authors conducted focus groups with the staff of recovery residences to explore motivation for abstinence in residents in order to offer directions for future research and to help potentially identify ways to enhance motivation for abstinence among individuals in, or seeking, recovery.
Authors conducted two focus groups with staff from recovery residences in California. Although they vary in their rules and policies as well as the services they provide, recovery residences are group homes where individuals are usually required to remain abstinent, encouraged to attend mutual-help meetings, and supported in their efforts to obtain employment or engage in school.
Although detail on focus group participants was somewhat limited, authors noted that a majority of participants were men who were in recovery themselves. In these particular recovery residences, the residences generally had a “zero-tolerance” policy around alcohol and other drug use. In other words, residents who drank or used drugs would be asked to leave, and linked with treatment, for example. They also required residents to attend 12-step mutual-help meetings.
On average, residents stayed in the recovery residences for about 5 months. Both focus groups were recorded and transcribed to text. See the box below for the content areas covered by the focus groups.
Following transcription, two members of the research team identified dominant themes from the text, resolved any discrepancies between their themes, and created a set of finalized themes from both focus groups.
Content areas covered by the focus groups:
Participants felt that residents’ motivation was positively influenced by drug testing and the recovery residence zero-tolerance substance use policies.
In addition, they felt that various forms of external pressure (from the legal system or family, for example) served as motivators for abstinence among their residents.
In addition, focus group participants described a general transition from being motivated for abstinence by consequences of using alcohol and other drugs (e.g., “deficit motivation”) to using the benefits of abstinence as a strategy to maintain or enhance motivation (e.g., being able to maintain a job).
Regarding social support, participants identified fellow residents (i.e., peers) as powerful tools in helping keep each other motivated for abstinence:
Although support specifically from family and friends was part of the initial list of questions, responses pertaining to this question were either not reported in the findings or not discussed in focus groups.
Regarding reactions to authors’ previous quantitative studies, participants noted the potential benefits of smaller vs. larger social networks, and felt generally that recovery residences may be a poorer fit for individuals high in psychiatric severity such as those with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. These individuals, they felt, may need a more flexible living situation, particularly with respect to their generally rigid policies around relapse.
Participants were unable to provide insights as to the added influence of perceived abstinence benefits for those who are less involved with mutual-help groups as the prompt led primarily to a discussion of the benefits of mutual-help involvement more generally among residents.
In treatment and recovery, motivation is a complex concept with many sides including perceived costs and benefits of abstinence as well as perceived costs and benefits of substance use. This understanding is consistent with a “decisional balance”, an exercise that allows individuals to consider the pros and cons of change and the pros and cons of not changing (see here).
Focus groups like those conducted in this study, and the rich qualitative data they provide, may increase knowledge and lead to more effective ways of addressing low motivation for abstinence and recovery.
One unique addition of this study to scientific research is the potential importance of peer relationships in helping recovery residents maintain abstinence motivation to help sustain recovery. Other studies on 12-step mutual-help have shown that the benefits of attendance may be explained by enhanced ability to help increase the number of people in one’s social circle that are supportive of their recovery (see here).
It is possible that the positive influence of this recovery peer support on enhanced abstinence might be explained by its ability to help maintain motivation for abstinence as described by focus group participants (e.g., checking in if a fellow resident is not doing well). This possibility might be leveraged in treatment and recovery support settings.
Next steps potentially include testing the primary hypothesis that emerged from the focus groups: Does residing in a recovery residence promote increased likelihood of sustained abstinence by providing greater access to peer support which helps enhance abstinence motivation over time?
To test this question, researchers could compare abstinence rates of recovery residents randomized to receive either a) resident peer support group in addition to the standard recovery residence or b) standard recovery residence services alone, without the additional support group. Then, if residents randomized to engage with the additional peer support group had better abstinence rates, researchers could examine whether those enhanced outcomes were explained by increases in abstinence motivation over time (e.g., do peer support group members report increases in abstinence motivation compared to non-members, and does that increase in motivation predict enhanced likelihood of abstinence).
Polcin, D. L., & Korcha, R. (2015). Motivation to maintain sobriety among residents of sober living recovery homes. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 6, 103-111. doi:10.2147/SAR.S89361
l
In prior work, authors of this study Polcin and Korcha, found that among members of recovery residences– described below in more detail – the benefits someone believes he/she will get from being abstinent (e.g., ability to rebuild relationships) are related to positive recovery outcomes, but more weakly than the costs they feel abstinence will have for them (e.g., will be difficult to relax or have fun).
In this study, the authors conducted focus groups with the staff of recovery residences to explore motivation for abstinence in residents in order to offer directions for future research and to help potentially identify ways to enhance motivation for abstinence among individuals in, or seeking, recovery.
Authors conducted two focus groups with staff from recovery residences in California. Although they vary in their rules and policies as well as the services they provide, recovery residences are group homes where individuals are usually required to remain abstinent, encouraged to attend mutual-help meetings, and supported in their efforts to obtain employment or engage in school.
Although detail on focus group participants was somewhat limited, authors noted that a majority of participants were men who were in recovery themselves. In these particular recovery residences, the residences generally had a “zero-tolerance” policy around alcohol and other drug use. In other words, residents who drank or used drugs would be asked to leave, and linked with treatment, for example. They also required residents to attend 12-step mutual-help meetings.
On average, residents stayed in the recovery residences for about 5 months. Both focus groups were recorded and transcribed to text. See the box below for the content areas covered by the focus groups.
Following transcription, two members of the research team identified dominant themes from the text, resolved any discrepancies between their themes, and created a set of finalized themes from both focus groups.
Content areas covered by the focus groups:
Participants felt that residents’ motivation was positively influenced by drug testing and the recovery residence zero-tolerance substance use policies.
In addition, they felt that various forms of external pressure (from the legal system or family, for example) served as motivators for abstinence among their residents.
In addition, focus group participants described a general transition from being motivated for abstinence by consequences of using alcohol and other drugs (e.g., “deficit motivation”) to using the benefits of abstinence as a strategy to maintain or enhance motivation (e.g., being able to maintain a job).
Regarding social support, participants identified fellow residents (i.e., peers) as powerful tools in helping keep each other motivated for abstinence:
Although support specifically from family and friends was part of the initial list of questions, responses pertaining to this question were either not reported in the findings or not discussed in focus groups.
Regarding reactions to authors’ previous quantitative studies, participants noted the potential benefits of smaller vs. larger social networks, and felt generally that recovery residences may be a poorer fit for individuals high in psychiatric severity such as those with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. These individuals, they felt, may need a more flexible living situation, particularly with respect to their generally rigid policies around relapse.
Participants were unable to provide insights as to the added influence of perceived abstinence benefits for those who are less involved with mutual-help groups as the prompt led primarily to a discussion of the benefits of mutual-help involvement more generally among residents.
In treatment and recovery, motivation is a complex concept with many sides including perceived costs and benefits of abstinence as well as perceived costs and benefits of substance use. This understanding is consistent with a “decisional balance”, an exercise that allows individuals to consider the pros and cons of change and the pros and cons of not changing (see here).
Focus groups like those conducted in this study, and the rich qualitative data they provide, may increase knowledge and lead to more effective ways of addressing low motivation for abstinence and recovery.
One unique addition of this study to scientific research is the potential importance of peer relationships in helping recovery residents maintain abstinence motivation to help sustain recovery. Other studies on 12-step mutual-help have shown that the benefits of attendance may be explained by enhanced ability to help increase the number of people in one’s social circle that are supportive of their recovery (see here).
It is possible that the positive influence of this recovery peer support on enhanced abstinence might be explained by its ability to help maintain motivation for abstinence as described by focus group participants (e.g., checking in if a fellow resident is not doing well). This possibility might be leveraged in treatment and recovery support settings.
Next steps potentially include testing the primary hypothesis that emerged from the focus groups: Does residing in a recovery residence promote increased likelihood of sustained abstinence by providing greater access to peer support which helps enhance abstinence motivation over time?
To test this question, researchers could compare abstinence rates of recovery residents randomized to receive either a) resident peer support group in addition to the standard recovery residence or b) standard recovery residence services alone, without the additional support group. Then, if residents randomized to engage with the additional peer support group had better abstinence rates, researchers could examine whether those enhanced outcomes were explained by increases in abstinence motivation over time (e.g., do peer support group members report increases in abstinence motivation compared to non-members, and does that increase in motivation predict enhanced likelihood of abstinence).
Polcin, D. L., & Korcha, R. (2015). Motivation to maintain sobriety among residents of sober living recovery homes. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 6, 103-111. doi:10.2147/SAR.S89361
SIGN UP FOR THE BULLETIN
