Recovery capital is a strengths-based concept representing the sum of an individual’s resources that support recovery. This study (1) describes recovery capital, (2) examines the relationship between recovery capital and treatment duration, and (3) assesses differences by gender in recovery capital among people receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Recovery Capital refers to the internal and external resources necessary to achieve and sustain recovery. The Recovery Capital Model recognizes alcohol and seizures can drinking cause epilepsy or convulsions that a variety of dimensions — personal capital, social capital, community capital, emotional support, commitment to sobriety, and well-being — can support or jeopardize recovery depending on how individuals use their capital. Ongoing assessment of strengths and gaps in each dimension helps build a solid foundation in recovery over time. Historically, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment has focused on acute stabilization and achieving abstinence rather than long-term holistic recovery [1].

  1. Instead, it could be more accurate to say that substance abuse and sobriety are dictated and marked by a lifelong series of outcomes in an individual’s life.
  2. At the service development level, this means making available a continuity of recovery resources with the intensity and monitoring modulated by the severity of the symptoms present (e.g., Bodenhimer, Wagner & Grumbach, 2002).
  3. All of which can support recovery if recovery networks are not stigmatized.
  4. If the patient reports as sober in their subsequent discharge reviews, that has generally been considered a positive outcome in our industry.
  5. Key to Granfield and Cloud’s “a-ha moment” was that recovery capital, like social capital, is really ever-present in our world.

Second, this study appears to be the first to investigate the differential role of recovery capital as a function of recovery ‘stage.’ Findings underline the premise that recovery is a dynamic process. Different factors promote positive outcome at successive stages of the recovery process, suggesting that recovery-oriented research must adopt a long-term approach. It is likely that there is broad variation in stages as a function of individual and psychosocial factors that remain to be elucidated empirically. The likelihood of returning to active addiction decreases significantly over time but it does not disappear. Hence the critical need for identifying recovery-promoting factors and barriers that apply to the later stages of recovery.

Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 89(23), 267–274. Vilsaint, C.L., Kelly, J.F., Bergman, B.G., Groshkova, T., Best, D., & White, W.L. Development and validation of a brief assessment of recovery capital (BARC-10) for alcohol and drug use disorder. REC CAP is appropriate for implementation in both clinical and peer settings, bridging the gap between a client’s exiting addiction treatment and assuming responsibility for self-directed recovery. Commonly Well uses a text messaging platform to design custom automated andpersonalized engagement strategies for data capture, performance monitoring, andoutcomes measurement. Professor William Cloud observed that those who recovered without intervention had more social capital than those who continued to struggle with addiction.

Derived from Granfield and Cloud’s qualitative study of natural recovery or spontaneous remission, recovery capital is a fluid construct. People can spend or accumulate it as part of a recovery experience. Recovery capital interacts with the problem of addiction by providing support and presenting paths that can lead to recovery. The subsequent application, influence and expanding body of research related to recovery capital have all contributed to a paradigmatic shift in the science of addiction recovery, moving away from traditional ideas of willpower toward a more holistic approach.

Indeed, at the time of the writing of the first systematic literature review of RC several gaps in knowledge were identified (1), and despite over 50 empirical manuscripts (Google Scholar search, October, 25, 2020) referencing that review, many of those questions remain unanswered still today. RC offers the potential for an empirically testable science of recovery, one that flips the traditions of addiction science from measuring pathologies to measuring strengths and capabilities. Indeed, one primary benefit of the concept of RC is as the foundation for measurement and the resulting capacity to test key theories and hypotheses about RC empirically, in a way that the much broader concept of recovery has yet to achieve. Thus, we argue that it is possible to operationalise, refine, and measure the narrower concept of RC, a revision that can then be used to help shape the broader debate and research agenda around addiction recovery. That is, if we can achieve consensus on a narrow set of indicators and test their predictive potential, this will inform the much larger and more ambitious process of capturing and measuring recovery pathways and trajectories. ” The role of social networks in recovery from addiction.

Community capital also has to do with the attitudes of community members and their openness to fully welcome people who are in recovery. NBHAP and R1 Learning have taken the guesswork out of aligning what we do to SDOHs with Z SURR Guide. We have cut the telephone lines and created a simple graphic that can be used to translate recovery capital to z-coding. As we move forward, we can now all speak the same language. At Sigmund, we strive to leverage our technology in ways that generate positive and improved patient outcomes. As a result, it can be difficult for providers to find the reason, time, or confidence to overhaul their treatment approach.

Clinicians working in the hectic environments of addiction treatment can be creatures of habit. If you ask us, we believe it is only a matter of time until recovery capital catches on in the US. The recovery capital scoring system could be implemented into an assessment in most functional EHR platforms right now.

These characteristics have been termed ‘Recovery Capital’, defined by Granfield and Cloud as “The breadth and depth of internal and external resources that can be drawn upon to initiate and sustain Recovery from alcohol and other drug problems”. One important role these recovery coaches may play outside of specialist treatment settings are as ‘community connectors’ (52). RCOs also can act as community hubs (e.g., (53)) whose role is to provide positive peer support networks and pathways to opportunities for volunteering and community engagement.

Social Capital

To be fair though, recovery capital is unquestionably an invaluable assessment method. After all, anything that provides a more thorough and comprehensive picture of the patient has got to be helpful. Even better to include less traditional factors such as environment and tribe.

Availability of data and materials

However, a person with moderate or severe substance use disorder and high recovery capital may require fewer resources to find and maintain recovery. The original use of the term ‘recovery capital’ is generally attributed to two eminent American ketamine detox symptoms timeline medications and treatment academics Robert Granfield and William Cloud who defined it as the breadth and depth of internal and external resources available to support someone in their recovery journey. Recovery capital remained mostly conceptual for about 10 years.

People who have one addiction are more susceptible to cross addiction

Resources that are a part of recovery capital can include parents, families, partners, friends, and neighbors. It also can refer to the person’s willingness to be sober, their commitment to their community, and the amount they engage and participate in value systems. Since 2017 The Last Door has organized the annual Recovery Capital Conference of Canada, where over 7,000 health care providers have attended from across Canada, and virtually. The conference features leading international researchers, clinicians, and policymakers who provide evidence-based clinical knowledge gained through decades of care.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the members of the recovering community who shared their experiences, strength and hope with our staff for this project. We also thank Gordon Storey, formerly with the Self Help Addiction Resource Centre Inc. (SHARC; Melbourne, Australia) for his insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper. MT and CEM contributed to study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by ABP and LE. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ABP, LE, and CEM.

Every Wednesday clients at The Last Door meet in weekly check in groups with their Case Managers and other clients to review and re-assess their Recovery Capital. This is to increase their positive Recovery Capital scores and decrease the negative impacts from their addictions, with the goal of improving quality of life. AA is a 12-step program that consists of meetings and pairing up with a sponsor to help those with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) and substance abuse or dependence get help with no financial burden. The meetings are free and a place to share your worries, qualms, and past experiences with alcohol in the hopes of reaching long-standing recovery.

Kaskutas and colleagues have reported findings whereby spirituality prospectively predicted sobriety among formerly alcohol-dependent persons while religiosity did not (Kaskutas, Turk, Bond, & Weisner, 2003). Of course, there’s another effort to mention in the timeline of recovery capital — the Recovery Capital Index. Back in 2013, none of the existing recovery capital scales specifically categorized or mapped the questions to the components or dimensions of recovery capital. This seemed really important in the context of helping individuals navigate the complex web of life. So recovery capital is the sum of resources that help to start the journey or process of recovery.

What does your score on the MIRC mean?

Shumway, S.T., Dakin, J.B., Jordan, S.S….& Harris, K. The development of the hope and coping in recovery measure (HCRM). Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery, December. Longabaugh R, Beattie MC, Noel N, Stout R, Malloy P. (1993).

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *