Program,Policy and Social Support Characteristics Associated With Rural vs. Urban Recovery Housing,2018

Abstract

Study objectives were to survey rural and urban recovery house owners/operators on their existing National Alliance for Recovery Residences-like (NARR-like) house programs/policies, and delineate rural–urban differences to raise awareness of NARR standards that align with current recovery house policies/programs and to inform new/enhance existing NARR standards. An electronic survey was developed and disseminated to 112 identified recovery houses in Kentucky. There was a 77% survey response rate. Rural recovery houses were more likely to have provisions in place for persons with disabilities, require clinical services participation, and have a stricter return-to-use policy. Work and/or school requirements in recovery houses were associated with resident stability and house expectations for community integration. Understanding differences in existing NARR-like rural versus urban recovery house policies and programs is necessary to raise state-led NARR affiliate awareness of differential recovery house training and support service needs that can best ready recovery houses for NARR certification.

Keywords

recovery house rural disabilities accommodations return-to-use policies employment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ADA National Network . (2021). Accessed May 21, 2021. https://adata.org/factsheet/ada-addiction-and-recovery

Ali

M. M.

Nye

West

(2022). Substance use disorder treatment, perceived need for treatment, and barriers to treatment among parenting women with substance use disorder in U.S. rural counties. Journal of Rural Health, 38(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12488

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cano

Best

Edwards

Lehman

(2017). Recovery capital pathways: Modelling the components of recovery wellbeing. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.002

Chen

Orom

Hay

J.L.

Waters

E.A.

Schofield

Kiviniemi

M.T.

(2019). Differences in rural and urban health information access and use. Journal of Rural Health, 35(3), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12335

Chen

Roy

Khushalani

J. S.

Puddy

R. W.

(2022). Trend in rural-urban disparities in access to outpatient mental health services among U.S. Adults aged 18-64 with employer-sponsored insurance: 2005-2018. Journal of rural health. Online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12644

Cloud

Granfield

(2008). Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical construct. Substance Use & Misuse: Special Issue on Recovery, 43(12–13), 1971–1986. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080802289762

Connery

H.S.

(2015). Medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder: Review of the evidence and future directions. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/hrp.0000000000000075

Ferrari

J. R

Jason

L. A.

Sasser

K. C.

Davis

M. I.

Olson

B. D.

(2006). Creating a home to promote recovery: The physical environments of Oxford house. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 31(1–2), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/j005v31n01_03

10.

Firth

(1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336755

11.

Heinze

Schemper

(2002). A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21(16), 2409–2419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1047

12.

Jason

L. A.

Ferrari

J. R.

(2010). Oxford House recovery homes: Characteristics and effectiveness. Psychological Services, 7(2), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017932

13.

Jason

L. A.

Groh

D. R.

Durocher

Alvarez

Aase

D. M.

Ferrari

J. R.

(2008). Counteracting ‘not in my backyard’: The positive effects of greater occupancy with mutual help recovery homes. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(7), 947–958. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20259

14.

Jason

L. A.

Light

J. M.

Stevens

E. B.

Beers

(2014). Dynamic social networks in recovery homes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(3–4), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9610-6

15.

Karon

S. S.

Pfefferle

S. G.

Wyant

(2019). Choice matters: Housing models that may promote recovery for individuals and families facing opioid use disorder. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistant.

16.

Majer

J. M.

Jason

L. A.

Ferrari

J. R.

Miller

S. A.

(2011). 12-Step involvement among a U.S. national sample of Oxford house residents. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.01.010

17.

Mericle

A. A.

Mahoney

Korcha

Delucchi

Polcin

D. L.

(2019). Sober living house characteristics: A multilevel analyses of factors associated with improved outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 98, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2018.12.004

18.

Mericle

A. A.

Polcin

D. L.

Hemberg

Miles

(2017). Recovery housing: Evolving models to address resident needs. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 49(4), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2017.1342154

19.

National Alliance for Recovery Residences . (2018a). MAT-capable recovery residences: How state policymakers can enhance and expand capacity to adequately support medication-assisted recovery. http://narronline.org/resources

20.

National Alliance for Recovery Residences . (2018b). NARR standard 3.0.

21.

National Alliance for Recovery Residences . (2022. June) 8, 2022. https://narronline.org/

22.

Polcin

D. L.

Henderson

Trocki

Evans

Wittman

(2012). Community context of sober living houses. Addiction Research & Theory, 20(6), 480–491. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2012.665967

23.

Reif

George

Braude

Dougherty

R. H.

Daniels

A. S.

Ghose

S. S.

Delphin-Rittmon

M. E.

(2014). Recovery housing: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services, 65(3), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300243

24.

Sánchez

Sahker

Arndt

(2020). The assessment of recovery capital (ARC) predicts substance abuse treatment completion. Addict Behavior, 102, 106–189. Epub 2019 Oct23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106189

25.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration . (2011). Substance use disorders in people with physical and sensory disabilities. In Brief, 6(1). https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma11-4648.pdf

26.

U.S. Census Bureau . (2021). U.S. and world population clock. Accessed April 2021.https://www.census.gov/popclock

27.

Voss

M. W.

Yaugher

A. C.

Atismé

Campbell

(2022). Opioid misuse viewed through person and place in the rural West. Journal of Opioid Management, 18(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2022.0705

28.

Whitesock

Zhao

Goettsch

Hanson

(2018). Validating a survey for addiction wellness: The recovery capital index. South Dakota Medicine: The Journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association, 71(5), 202–212.

29.

Winograd

R.P.

Wood

C.A.

Stringfellow

E.J.

Presnall

Duello

Horn

Rudder

(2020). Implementation and evaluation of Missouri’s medication first treatment approach for opioid use disorder in publicly funded substance use treatment programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 108, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.06.015

30.

Wood

C. A.

Duello

Miles

Lohmann

Gochez-Kerr

Richardson

Winograd

R. P.

(2022). Acceptance of medications for opioid use disorder in recovery housing programs in Missouri. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 138(7), 108747. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108747

Program,Policy and Social Support Characteristics Associated With Rural vs. Urban Recovery Housing,2018–2020

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References