Advertisement

A Stabilizing and Destabilizing Social World: Close Relationships and Recovery Processes in SUD

  • Marius VesethEmail author
  • Christian Moltu
  • Thomas Solgaard Svendsen
  • Sverre Nesvåg
  • Tale Ekeroth Slyngstad
  • Alexander Waagan Skaalevik
  • Jone Bjornestad
Original Article

Abstract

This qualitative study reports on a thematic analysis of the role that close relationships may play in recovery processes following SUD. Inspired by a framework of research involving service users, interviews with 30 participants who had fully recovered were conducted by interviewers with first-hand experience of the topic of focus. The findings are summarized through a superordinate theme that we have called “a stabilizing and destabilizing social world,” and three broad constituent themes: (a) being entangled in difficult relationships; (b) people provide essential support and stability; and (c) we become different people along the pathway of our lives. We relate our findings to experiential knowledge generated from a recovery perspective, highlight reflexive processes involved in carrying out the research, and discuss implications and limitations of the present study.

Keywords

Qualitative research Service user involvement Lived experience Recovery Substance use disorder 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Davidson L, Andres-Hyman R, Bedregal L, Tondora J, Frey J, Kirk TA Jr. From “double trouble” to “dual recovery”: integrating models of recovery in addiction and mental health. J Dual Diagn. 2008;4(3):273–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Guebaly N. The meanings of recovery from addiction: evolution and promises. J Addict Med. 2012;6(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ness O, Borg M, Davidson L. Facilitators and barriers in dual recovery: a literature review of first-person perspectives. Adv Dual Diagn. 2014;7(3):107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidson L, Evans AC, Achara-Abrahams I, White W. Beyond co-occurring disorders to behavioral health integration. Adv Dual Diagn. 2014;7(4):185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gagne C, White W, Anthony WA. Recovery: a common vision for the fields of mental health and addictions. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2007;31(1):32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slade M. Personal recovery and mental illness: a guide for mental health professionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidson L, Tondora J, Ridgway P. Life is not an “outcome”: reflections on recovery as an outcome and as a process. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2010;13(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mackintosh V, Knight T. The notion of self in the journey back from addiction. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(8):1094–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deegan P. Recovery as a journey of the heart. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 1996;19(3):91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deegan PE. Recovery: the lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosoc Rehabil J. 1988;11:11–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davidson L. Living outside mental illness: qualitative studies of recovery in schizophrenia. New York: NYU Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laudet AB, White WL. Recovery capital as prospective predictor of sustained recovery, life satisfaction, and stress among former poly-substance users. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(1):27–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Price-Robertson R, Obradovic A, Morgan B. Relational recovery: beyond individualism in the recovery approach. Adv Ment Health. 2016;14:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Topor A, Borg M, Di Girolamo S, Davidson L. Not just an individual journey: social aspects of recovery. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2011;57:90–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veseth M, Binder PE, Stige SH. “If there’s no stability around them”: experienced therapists’ view on the role of patients’ social world in recovery in bipolar disorder. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017;11:55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKay JR. Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2017;112(5):751–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tew J, Ramon S, Slade M, Bird V, Melton J, Le Boutillier C. Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: a review of the evidence. Br J Soc Work. 2012;42:443–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schön U-K, Denhov A, Topor A. Social relationships as a decisive factor in recovering from severe mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2009;55(4):336–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown S, Tracy EM, Jun M, Park H, Min MO. Personal network recovery enablers and relapse risks for women with substance dependence. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(3):371–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pahwa R, Smith ME, Yuan Y, Padgett D. The ties that bind and unbound ties: experiences of formerly homeless individuals in recovery from serious mental illness and substance use. Qual Health Res. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318814250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faulkner A. Survivor research and mad studies: the role and value of experiential knowledge in mental health research. Disabil Soc. 2017;32(4):500–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneider B. Participatory action research, mental health service user research, and the hearing (our) voices projects. Int J Qual Methods. 2012;11(2):152–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Veseth M, Binder P-E, Borg M, Davidson L. Collaborating to stay open and aware: service user involvement in mental health research as an aid in reflexivity. Nord Psychol. 2017;69(4):256–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Binder PE, Holgersen H, Moltu C. Staying close and reflexive: an explorative and reflexive approach to qualitative research on psychotherapy. Nord Psychol. 2012;64(2):103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hagen E, Erga AH, Hagen KP, Nesvåg SM, McKay JR, Lundervold AJ, Walderhaug E. One-year sobriety improves satisfaction with life, executive functions and psychological distress among patients with polysubstance use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017;76:81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Svendsen TS, Erga AH, Hagen E, McKay JR, Njå ALM, Årstad J, Nesvåg S. How to maintain high retention rates in long-term research on addiction: a case report. J Soc Work Pract Addict. 2017;17:374–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bjornestad J, Svendsen TS, Slyngstad TE, Erga A, McKay JR, Nesvåg S, Skalevik AW, Veseth M, Moltu C. A life more ordinary. In: Processes of 5-year of recovery from substance abuse. Experiences of 30 recovered service users. [Manuscripted submitted for publication].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hill CE, Thompson BJ, Williams EN. A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Couns Psychol. 1997;25(4):517–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berman AH, Bergman H, Palmstierna T, Schlyter F. Evaluation of the drug use disorders identification test (DUDIT) in criminal justice and detoxification settings and in a Swedish population sample. Eur Addict Res. 2005;11(1):22–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Saunders J, Grant M. The alcohol use disorders identification test: guidelines for use. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Derogatis LR. SCL–90R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual-II. 2nd ed. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research; 1992.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roth RM, Isquith PK, Gioia GA. Behavior rating inventory of executive function-(adult version) BRIEF-A. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2005.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Personal Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harris M. “Three in the room” embodiment, disclosure, and vulnerability in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(12):1689–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Finlay L. Phenomenology for therapists: researching the lived world. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Davidson L, White W. The concept of recovery as an organizing principle for integrating mental health and addiction services. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2007;34(2):109–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dennis M, Scott CK. Managing addiction as a chronic condition. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2007;4(1):45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Coleman R. Recovery: an alien concept. Gloucester: Handsell; 2011.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rogers CR. The foundations of the person-centered approach. Education. 1979;100(2):98–107.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peele S, Brodsky A. Love and addiction. Watertown: Broadrow Publications; 1975/2015.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hari J. Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong. TED-talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong/transcript2015. Accessed 7 Jan 2019.
  44. 44.
    Granfield R, Cloud W. Social context and “natural recovery”: the role of social capital in the resolution of drug-associated problems. Subst Use Misuse. 2001;36(11):1543–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mitchell SA. Can love last? The fate of romance over time. New York: WW Norton & Company; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moltu C, Stefansen J, Svisdahl M, Veseth M. How to enhance the quality of mental health research: service users’ experiences of their potential contributions through collaborative methods. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2013;16(1):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bourdieu P. Practical reason: on the theory of action. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature India Private Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Veseth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Moltu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thomas Solgaard Svendsen
    • 4
  • Sverre Nesvåg
    • 4
  • Tale Ekeroth Slyngstad
    • 4
  • Alexander Waagan Skaalevik
    • 4
  • Jone Bjornestad
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PsychologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryDistrict General Hospital of FørdeFørdeNorway
  3. 3.Department of Health and Caring SciencesWestern Norway University of Applied SciencesFørdeNorway
  4. 4.Centre for Alcohol and Drug ResearchStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  5. 5.Department of Social Studies, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations