Understanding and Evaluating Addiction Treatment

The findings suggest that this occupancy support undertaking was successfully back uping it ‘s users with their recovery from intoxicant and/or drug jobs. Differences in recovery ends or non placing with the term recovery did n’t look to impact this sensed benefit. The service appeared to be working with the respondents ‘ ain identified ends sing substance usage. Resolution of practical jobs and the relationship they had with the service/workers appeared to be important factors in the respondent ‘s recovery procedure.

The reported experience of this sample supported the wider position that recovery is much more than ceasing/controlling substance usage, affecting mending individuality, self betterment, deciding jobs and holding aspirations.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team


In the past two old ages at that place has been a focal point by the Scots authorities for drug intervention to go “ recovery ” focused, instead than merely the reduction/minimising of injury. The definition states that recovery should concentrate on “ traveling towards a drug free life ” ( Scots Government, 2008 p23 ) . Whilst this could be seen as turn toing the intervention of diacetylmorphine users off from merely methadone care schemes, it is possible that services may travel towards following this definition for other types of drug users including intoxicant users without oppugning whether this reflects the ends of these different groups. In little rural countries drug and intoxicant services frequently have combined budgets with employees working in both Fieldss and it ‘s ill-defined how this will impact such services. In add-on there is grounds to propose that some groups are better engaged in services that have a harm minimisation/reduction focal point such as those who are stateless with complex demands. If resources are insensitively redirected towards abstention based schemes how will this impact these groups? Despite this recovery thrust small is known about substance misusers ‘ perceptual experiences of recovery including the bomber groups within this and whether there are any important differences.Another country of important development in Scotland is the focal point on stateless bar.

This has resulted in the creative activity of a figure of occupancy support undertakings, aimed to assist vulnerable people sustain their occupancies. There has been small rating into whether such undertakings really work, even less where undertakings are specialist occupancy support services.By utilizing a preponderantly interpretative attack utilizing semi structured interviews this survey aims to unite these two issues. It is hoped to derive an in deepness apprehension of the service user experience in relation to: utilizing a little, rural, specialist occupancy support service ( for those affected by substance abuse issues ) , their personal thoughts and experience of recovery, how if at all the service has helped and if this is viewed as lending towards their recovery.

Literature Review

For the intent of this literature review a figure of resources were accessed. The Knowledge Network which has links to a broad scope of databases and diaries was accessed utilizing combinations of a figure of footings ( see Appendix A ) . Searchs were limited to full text and published between 2000 -2010. The Scots dependence surveies online library, stateless charities and Scots authorities web sites were besides accessed.

Searches utilizing combinations of footings were besides undertaken on Google hunt engine.

Homelessness and Substance Misuse

It is often reported that homelessness and substance abuse are “ inextricably linked ” , nevertheless the causal way of this relationship has been of some argument as to whether substance abuse is a cause or effect of homelessness ( Shelter, 2006 ) , ( Johnson and Chamberlain, 2008 ) .Fountain and Howes ( 2002 ) found from their survey of 389 people that 63 % identified alcohol/drug usage as a causal factor in going homeless.

This survey replicated the findings of old research. However the survey went on to place that homelessness had a much larger consequence on substance abuse, with people either get downing or increasing their usage of drugs as a manner of get bying with their homeless state of affairs. The two combined can make a complex “ go arounding door ” state of affairs that is hard to interrupt away from ( Shelter, 2006 ) .Subsequent surveies have gone on to place the damaging consequence homelessness has on substance abuse and have called upon the demand for more stateless bar schemes ( Johnson and Chamberlain, 2008 ) . In add-on it has been identified that the triggers for homelessness and substance abuse as separate issues are really similar. These include educational issues ( e.g. low classs, exclusion from school ) , dislocation of household relationships, sexual/physical maltreatment, offense and wellness jobs.

Therefore when dependence and homelessness are combined they can worsen each other, the consequence of which can amplify or do other jobs. Research has highlighted that those who are stateless and drug users have multiple and complex demands and frequently have higher degrees of hazard pickings behaviors ( Kemp et al 2006, p320 ) .

Prevention services for Homeless and Substance Misuse

In the UK the focal point of homelessness policy has moved towards bar. It has been stated that Scotland has some of the most forward thought statute law with bar as its nucleus scheme.

The purpose is to extinguish precedence homelessness by 2012 ( Scottish Executive 2005 ) . In add-on, NHS boards and DAATS ( Drug and Alcohol Action Teams ) have been directed by the Scots Government to include homelessness as portion of local programs and work in partnership with local bureaus and stateless people. Joint working and coaction between bureaus is seen as an indispensable constituent ( Doherty & A ; Stuttaford 2007 ) .Tenancy support/ drifting support services purpose to help people in keeping their occupancy and avoid the revolving door scenario. They can either support people to travel on to keeping their ain occupancy or be preventive, assisting vulnerable people at hazard of eviction by assisting to turn to the implicit in issues ( Pannell 2006 p22 ) .It has been identified that there is a deficiency of research to grounds support services which aim to forestall homelessness for substance misusers.

Peace ( 2008 p54 ) attributes this to the complex relationship between dependence and homelessness where substance abuse is improbable to be the lone issue. Thus a bar service can non concentrate entirely on substance abuse but requires a multi-faceted attack covering other issues such as day-to-day life accomplishments, mental wellness, isolation, lodging and educational jobs. In add-on the bulk of occupancy support services are generic in nature, therefore are non targeted at specific populations, frequently mentioning to specialist bureaus for substance abuse issues. It has besides been identified that homeless bar services are comparatively little and in the early phases of development. Pawson et Al ( 2007 ) place that monitoring of results from occupancy support services is rare despite Local Authorities concentrating resources on such schemes. Conversely mensurating effectivity on homelessness from dependence services is besides uneffective as the common tools used to mensurate results roll up small informations on lodging and are non designed with homelessness in head ( Peace 2008 p67 ) .Given the deficiency of published research into results of occupancy support undertakings, it follows that there is small research into the perceptual experiences of service users of how tenancy support has impacted on their implicit in issues. It is possible to acquire a general position of how service users perceive a peculiar service through Care Commission ( 2010 ) ratings nevertheless their focal point is care criterions instead than results.

Pawson et Al ( 2007 ) in their rating of homelessness bar activities in Scotland place restrictions in their grounds sing occupancy support undertakings. Their telephone study was non extended to this country of homelessness bar due to the demand to avoid long interviews which was n’t within the range of the study. Given that Local Authorities have invested to a great extent in this dearly-won country of occupancy support, collected small in mensurating results and support is being cut back, it could be suggested that farther research in this country is critical.


In the past 2 old ages in Scotland there has been a suggested alteration of focal point in relation to substance abuse intervention. Two major paperss Essential Care ( SACDM, 2008 ) and The Road to Recovery ( Scots Government, 2008 ) have asserted that the construct of “ recovery ” should be the nucleus focal point of drug intervention instead than merely the direction and/or minimising of injury through schemes such as replacement prescribing.

However the study goes on to state that harm decrease and recovery are n’t reciprocally sole, instead that injury decrease is “ complementary ” to the procedure of recovery.The Scots Government have defined recovery as:a procedure through which an person is enabled to travel on from their job drug usage, towards a drug-free life as an active and conducive member of society( Scots Government, 2008 p23 )SACDM ( 2008 p28 ) identifies that there is small research grounds to back up a recovery attack in dependence intervention, nevertheless deduced that it ‘s usage in the mental wellness and larning disablement Fieldss provided some grounds that it “ may be utile ” . In kernel this attack aims to advance a individual ‘s wider aspirations and non see people as defined by their jobs.In contrast Peace ( 2008 p1 ) identified grounds that services utilizing a harm reduction/minimisation policy instead than the demand of abstention were able to prosecute more efficaciously with stateless people and that abstention based services demonstrated small success. Whilst Peace ( 2008 p2 ) suggests that cautiousness should be used when mensurating “ success ” as this is frequently defined by the service ‘s ain ends, it does raise the inquiry that if resources in intervention services are diverted towards abstention schemes in reaction to the current push towards substance free recovery how will this impact on the more complex demands of homeless substance misusers?Published research into user positions of recovery from substance abuse besides appears to be minimum ( Laudet 2007, McIntosh & A ; McKeganey 2001 ) . Laudet ( 2007 ) interviewed 289 people from urban countries in America who had experienced diacetylmorphine and cleft dependance to basically happen out what recovery meant to them. The bulk identified recovery as entire abstention ; merely 4 % identified controlled usage of a substance. When asked about the benefits of recovery the prevailing response of over a 3rd identified the experience of a new life and a 2nd opportunity.

Being free of drugs ( 23 % ) and a sense of ego betterment ( 22.7 % ) were the following most frequent responses. Laudet ( 2007 ) identifies that one of the restrictions to generalising the findings of this survey is that the bulk of the sample had old experience of treatment/12 measure attacks and that this was correlated with how recovery was defined hence the findings may non be the same for those who dealt with their dependences by themselves. Besides it may non reassign to less dependent populations, intoxicant users or people populating in more rural locations or different states. In seeking to detect the determination to give up drugs from a nut ‘s position in Scotland, McIntosh and McKeganey ( 2001 ) undertook 70 semi-structured interviews with drug users who considered themselves to hold made alterations towards “ de-addiction ” ( this besides included people on dolophine hydrochloride ) . In seeking their subjective experiences McIntosh and McKeganey ( 2001 p.57 ) suggest that two things appeared cardinal to the recovery procedure: a desire “ to reconstruct a spoilt individuality ” and a sense of a hereafter that differed from the present.


The proposal for this undertaking was approved by The Department of Applied Social Science Ethics Committee, University of Stirling in February 2010.The focal point of this survey was to derive insight into client perceptual experiences of utilizing a little occupancy support undertaking in relation to their recovery from intoxicant and/or drug jobs. As this survey was concerned with the in deepness apprehension of the service user ‘s experience, a chiefly interpretative attack was adopted. Interpretative attacks are concerned with the significance of a person/group ‘s experience of a given state of affairs, how they interpret it and its significance ( Radnor 2001 p6 ) .The method of informations aggregation chosen was by semi-structured interview leting for the aggregation of both quantitative and qualitative information utilizing both closed and open-ended inquiries. Closed inquiries allowed the aggregation of informations that could be compared on specific countries such as usage of intervention services and unfastened inquiries allowed the freedom and in depth aggregation of the interviewee ‘s experience and beliefs both in relation to their recovery and the function of occupancy support. It was decided to get down the interview with preponderantly closed inquiries bit by bit traveling towards the more complex open-ended manner.

It was hoped that this would assist the interviewee go more confident and relaxed, encouraging Fuller responses to the open-ended inquiries. In add-on consideration was given to seeking to guarantee a logical patterned advance to the interview in relation to the surveies aims. Kumar ( 2007 p140 ) believes that logical patterned advance, get downing with simple subjects come oning to more complex 1s sustains the interviewee ‘s involvement and motive.

Interviewees were asked permission to enter the session, to capture the alone responses of the interviewees non the research worker ‘s reading at the clip.Following consent processs ( Appendix B ) , the interview commenced with finishing the Treatment Outcome Profile ( National Treatment Agency, 2006 ) ( Appendix C ) . This provided a baseline on the interviewee ‘s substance usage over the old four hebdomads, wellness hazard behavior, psychological and physical wellness, and societal operation. This information could be compared to the sensed consequence the interviewees felt the service had had on their recovery and their retrospective histories of drug/alcohol usage when get downing the undertaking. This was so followed by the interview agenda ( Appendix D ) . The first portion of the agenda was partly informed by the inquiries used in Phase 1 of Rowdy, Anderson and Hughes ( 2007 ) service rating of Tartan Tower Project.

The inquiries utilized a tick box design and were utile in roll uping information on many services and jobs the interviewee may hold used or experienced. The subdivision on recovery utilised inquiries from research by Laudet ( 2007 ) in seeking user positions on recovery. An of import difference in this survey compared to Laudet ‘s ( 2007 ) is that the sample group were non required to admit holding an alcohol/drug job to be eligible. The undertaking supports those with identified alcohol/drugs issues and going at hazard of losing their occupancy, nevertheless this portion of the undertaking is n’t considered to be a intervention service and as such its users can be at any phase of the dependence rhythm or hold jobs with substances but non needfully be dependent users. In his research Laudet ( 2007 p247 ) asked the inquiry “ What are your personal ends right now in respect to drug and intoxicant usage? ” This was in relation to comparing the interviewee ‘s ends with their definition of recovery, nevertheless it was besides asked in this survey to guarantee of import information was non lost due to a possible rejection of the construct of recovery.

The sample for this survey was taken from a little, rural occupancy support undertaking for those with alcohol/drug issues and identified as at hazard of losing their occupancy. Participant demands were that they were service users of the undertaking and agreed to take portion in the survey following information given on the nature of the survey and interviews. A sample of 5 respondents was identified. Although little sample sizes lend themselves to the interpretative interview manner, this sample is still really little. Whilst this has small consequence on the comparings associating to informations gathered on a given person ‘s experience, the sample size via medias analysis of commonalties across the sample in the responses of interviewees.

However it was out with the range of this survey to include similar undertakings due to resource and geographical restraints.


The sample consisted of five respondents ( out of a possible eight ) who were service users of the occupancy support undertaking and agreed to take part in the survey. ( Sample features – Appendix E ) .

Detailss of non-respondents were non taken, so although merely a little sample it is hard to govern out choice prejudice i.e. those who did n’t hold to take part may hold been sing more helter-skelter drug/alcohol usage and related jobs at the clip of the survey.There were 3 males and 2 females, aged between 30 and 59 and whose ethnicity was preponderantly white/Scottish. All 5 lived in lodging association rented adjustment, 3 were individual tenancy, one lived with their kids and one lived with their spouse and kid. Four respondents decided to prosecute with occupancy support after the dependence services they were involved in suggested it, one was referred by societal work. All cited practical jobs as grounds for prosecuting.

The length of clip involved with the occupancy support undertaking ranged from 9 months to 6 old ages with one in the procedure of traveling on and no longer necessitating occupancy support. The figure of hours tenancy support received by each respondent ranged from 2-5 hours per hebdomad. All respondents reported holding had jobs with intoxicant usage anterior to and during their occupancy support. Two respondents besides described day-to-day usage of hemp in add-on to alcohol jobs. Four respondents considered themselves to be in recovery. Of the five respondents three identified complete abstention as there end, one identified controlled usage of intoxicant and one identified abstention from drug usage and controlled usage of intoxicant.

Treatment Outcome Profile

The Treatment Outcome Profile ( National Treatment Agency 2006 ) ( Appendix C ) measures countries of substance abuse, hazard behavior, wellness and societal operation.

This was used to supply a baseline for the respondent ‘s current substance usage and operation in the 4 hebdomads prior to interview.Substance UseThe respondents merely reported holding used two types of substances in the 4 hebdomads prior to interview, intoxicant and hemp.Alcohol – 3 respondents reported no intoxicant usage.

2 respondents had drunk an norm of 14 and 18 units per twenty-four hours over 3 and 14 yearss in the past 4 hebdomads.Cannabis – 2 respondents reported usage of hemp, smoking 3 and 6 spliffs/joints per twenty-four hours over 1 and 2 yearss in the past 4 hebdomads.Injecting Risk behavior and CrimeThe respondents reported no shooting behavior or incidences of condemnable activity in the 4 hebdomads prior to interview.Health and Social FunctioningIn this subdivision respondents were asked to rate their psychological wellness, physical wellness and overall quality of life on graduated tables of 0-20, 0 being hapless to 20 being good. On all the graduated tables the respondents scored themselves between 10 and 20. The mean combined tonss were marginally lower for the 2 respondents who had used intoxicant in the past 4 hebdomads hiting an norm of 13.3. The others had mean tonss of 16.

Two respondents reported no paid work in the past 4 hebdomads, two identified occasional work of 6 and 8 yearss and one had late started full-time work, working 25 yearss. No 1 reported attending college. None of the respondents reported acute lodging jobs or being at hazard of eviction.Overall the respondents reported few jobs with their substance usage in the four hebdomads prior to interview. All perceived themselves to be in reasonably good wellness and that their quality of life was good.

They reported no lodging issues or condemnable activity.

Substance Use Prior to Commencing Tenancy Support

Respondents were asked to believe back to the start of their occupancy support and their substance usage at that clip. This information was collected strictly from the respondents as it had non been agreed as portion of this survey to analyze instance notes, hence there possibly mistakes in respondent callback. However respondents appeared confident about what and how they were utilizing at this clip.

Four respondents reported day-to-day dependant usage of intoxicant and one of imbibing at harmful degrees four yearss per hebdomad, two respondents reported day-to-day usage of hemp. When compared with their substance usage over the 4 hebdomads prior to interview, all had either ceased usage or had reduced their consumption since get downing occupancy support ( see Graphs 1 to 4 ) .Graph 1Graph 2Graph 3Graph 4All 5 respondents appeared to be either accomplishing or traveling towards their expressed ends in relation to alcohol and/or hemp usage.

Problems Experienced Immediately Prior to and During Tenancy Support

Respondents were asked to place from a list ( Appendix D Question 7 ) jobs they had been sing both instantly anterior to get downing occupancy support and during their clip in the service. No respondent had experienced menace of eviction or jobs with the constabulary.

All five respondents reported jobs pull offing dependence to substances. The most common jobs reported in combination with this were: mental /physical wellness issues ( n=5 ) , rent arrears/debt/benefit issues ( n=4 ) and societal isolation/loneliness ( n=4 ) . Other countries identified were: practical life accomplishments ( n=3 ) , unemployment issues ( n=3 ) , neighbour issues/behaviour of others ( i.e. others seeking to entree adjustment ) ( n=2 ) , maintaining healthcare assignments ( n=2 ) , child protection ( n=1 ) and lodging conditions ( n=1 ) . All respondents cited that the occupancy support had been of some aid or a large aid for every job they identified.

Respondents ‘ usage of Servicess for Alcohol/ Drug Problems

As expected due to deficiency of reported condemnable engagement no respondent had used a service in prison or tribunal intervention order.

Merely one respondent had of all time been in stateless adjustment and had found this of no aid. Again, this was n’t surprising as the occupancy support service was a stateless bar service for those with bing occupancies, instead than helping those from a point of homelessness to prolonging a occupancy. Four respondents had been in regular contact with community based dependence services at some point of which merely one respondent was presently utilizing. All four respondents who had on a regular basis used community based dependence services reported to hold found them of some aid ( n =3 ) or a large aid ( n=4 ) ( figure greater than sample as some respondents used more than one service ) . Two respondents had been in residential rehabilitation antecedently and both found this of some aid. One respondent had merely had minimum contact with one drug undertaking and stated it was no aid. Three respondents had tried 12 measure support groups, one had used one time or twice happening it of no aid and two were current users and found it of some aid. Respondents had besides used generic wellness services such as their GP, infirmary and a+e.

All reported contact with generic services ( n= 9 ) was considered of some aid or a large aid, except one where the GP was considered to be no aid.When asked why they may non hold used a drug or intoxicant service either now or in the yesteryear, the three most common grounds were: believing it was a service for other kinds of users ( n=3 ) , non cognizing plenty about a service ( n=3 ) and believing no 1 else could assist them ( n=3 ) . Other grounds included feeling ashamed ( n=2 ) and non believing they had a job ( n=2 ) . Despite being in a rural country no one identified issues with accessing services due to clip or distance, although all users were reasonably cardinal in the geographical country covered by the service. Concern about other people or services happening out were minimum and maintaining off from other drinkers/drug users was non identified as an issue.

Respondents and Recovery

As this undertaking was about client perceptual experiences of occupancy support in relation to their “ recovery ” from drug and/or alcohol jobs it was felt of import to arouse respondent ‘s positions of what recovery meant to them.Four respondents considered themselves to be in recovery of which all had reported a history of dependent imbibing and had old contact with dependence services.

The one respondent who did n’t see themselves to be in recovery had a reported history of non dependent harmful imbibing, day-to-day usage of hemp and minimum contact with dependence services. However they did believe that their usage of intoxicant and hemp had adversely affected their life and taken stairss to alter this by cut downing their usage.In relation to how long they felt they had been in recovery the four respondents reported periods of between 9 months and 6 old ages. For three of the respondents this corresponded to the length of clip they had been utilizing the occupancy support service.

Definition of Recovery and Goals

In the forced pick definition of recovery ( Appendix D Question 12a ) four respondents take “ no usage of intoxicant or drugs ” and one respondent chose “ chair controlled usage of any drug or intoxicant ” . For the four respondents who considered themselves to be in recovery this reflected their ain ends with respect to their drug/alcohol usage.The respondent who did n’t see themselves to be in recovery chose “ no usage of any drugs or intoxicant ” nevertheless their ain reported end was to halt drugs and drink less, ( this was an option in the forced pick definition ) . When asked to specify recovery this respondent suggested that it was utilizing dependence services and necessitating aid to halt.

Well traveling into rehab fundamentally eehhmmaˆ¦.just being helped to remain off it if that makes sense.Laudet ( 2007 p 250 ) reported in his survey that a 3rd of people who considered themselves non in recovery gave definitions normally held by the general populace in that recovery means endeavoring to stay abstentious.

In add-on the bulk of this group felt that recovery required needing or acquiring aid from treatment/support groups.When respondents were asked to specify recovery and their ain personal ends all respondents cited substance abuse straight. Other non substance related definitions were ; self- betterment ( n=3 ) , being in control of life ( n=2 ) and recovering self respect and regard from others ( n=1 ) . As identified by McIntosh & A ; McKeganey ( 2001 ) and Laudet ( 2007 ) a common subject was approximately regain and reconstructing individuality.entire abstinenceaˆ¦.and being in control of lifeaˆ¦.and to hold got back my ego regard and regard from others.

To be able to command it to the extent where I can take, non a normal life, but a life I can break myself with. It ‘s difficult to truly set it down. To better from what I was before where I was nigh adequate trough wise – in the trough. It ‘s being able to command my entire manner of life.

Benefits of Recovery

Respondents were asked to depict what had been good if anything about their recovery. This helped to derive greater penetration into the experience of recovery. Four respondents identified a sense of a new/different life, self betterment and improved/positive attitude.

Three, identified being substance loose, holding improved physical/mental wellness and improved household dealingss. Two respondents made mention to holding direction/achieving ends and improved fundss and one identified holding a support web. Common subjects were holding control, self respect and recovering something/not traveling back. Laudet ( 2007 p251 ) found really similar consequences in his survey. Aspects of these descriptions can besides be related to McIntosh & A ; McKeganey ‘s ( 2001 ) determination of reconstructing “ a spoilt individuality ” .

I merely feel like a different individual I feel a batch healthier. That ‘s the biggest thing truly. Financially I ‘m better off. I ‘ve got a spot of self-respect dorsum as good – that ‘s a large thing tooaˆ¦.

and my familyaˆ¦I ‘m non seting my household through what I have been seting them through.I ‘ve got my driving license back now, something that I have been desiring back for a long clip. I did n’t believe I would of all time acquire it back. I ‘m now using for a computing machine class and I feel that I am traveling to get down and accomplish something now. I want to acquire a occupation, a full-time occupation. I ‘ve regained my self-respect.

I ‘ve got my self-respect back.I ‘m in control of my life at all times. Yesaˆ¦ I ‘ve now got a occupation, good household relationships, trust, wellness. Trust that I ‘m non traveling to imbibe any longer.

A Respect – that ‘s another word. Respect that I wo n’t imbibe ; that I ‘m a better individual for non imbibing and that they respect me for it.The respondent who did n’t see themselves in recovery described how altering their usage of drugs and intoxicant had benefited their life, placing betterments in mental wellness, degree of operation and fiscal benefits. However there were no statements associating to a sense of improved individuality or aspiration.

Tenancy Support and Recovery

Respondents were asked how the occupancy support had helped towards pull offing their recovery from drug/alcohol jobs. All respondents felt that the service had helped. The respondent who did n’t see themselves to be in recovery identified how the service had helped them with dependence issues and practical jobs.

In their responses merely two straight referred to their substance abuse issues in relation to pull offing backsliding and keeping motive, despite all five antecedently placing the service as being a large aid this country. All respondents made some mention to the practical jobs they had identified as being issues when they started utilizing the service. The most common subjects were: aid with debt/finances ( n=3 ) , day-to-day structure/practical life activities ( n=3 ) , attach toing to assignments ( n=2 ) and get the better ofing societal anxiety/getting out the house ( n=2 ) .

Two respondents identified how the practical support had helped to cut down emphasis and that this had been good. Yates, Anderson and Hughes ( 2007 p33 ) besides found in their service rating that clients frequently perceived deciding practical issues non usually seen as portion of “ traditional dependence intervention ” as important points in their advancement.What surely arose from this inquiry were responses rich in depicting the manner the service/staff had approached their work, the relationship they had with them and the importance this had in developing self regard, belief and the assurance to hold aspirations. This included the flexibleness and accessibility of the service ( n=4 ) , experiencing able to speak to their worker ( n=4 ) , statements mentioning to being accepted by their workers/non judgemental ( n=3 ) , that workers believed in them and encouraged them ( n=3 ) .If there ‘s person you need you ‘ve got person thereThey ‘ve really taught me that I am a individual that can make things if I put my head to it and non merely shunt things off.Merely being at that place, promoting me to travel out and merely make normal things and cognizing I ‘m non concealing anything from them – they know everything about me but still did n’t judge meaˆ¦.A Talking, back uping and promoting me to travel for the job.

A I merely needed that encouragement because I knew I would n’t acquire it at place, that encouragement was to do me make it.The quality of assisting relationships has been the focal point of much research in the counselling/psychotherapy field which has identified that the quality of this “ curative relationship ” influences battle and results ( Smith et Al, 2004 ) . Smith et Al ( 2004 ) found in their survey a positive association between the strength of the “ curative confederation ” and client ‘s declaration of jobs. Ribner & A ; Knei-Paz ( 2002 ) in their research of client ‘s perceptual experiences in relation to successful assisting relationships with societal workers found subjects such as ; being non-judgemental, flexible, enabling and accessible. In add-on, Meier et Al ( 2005 ) in a reappraisal of the literature sing substance abuse concluded that the “ curative confederation ” had an of import portion to play in the results of drug intervention, nevertheless identified that there was small understanding about what contributed to the quality of such relationships.All respondents were highly positive about their experience with the service and felt it had made a important part to there advancement with dependence issues, associated jobs and quality of life. This did n’t look to hold been affected by whether they considered themselves to be in recovery or whether they had abstention or cut downing use ends in relation to substance abuse.

Their ego reported state of affairs at get downing the service and information at baseline in the four hebdomads prior to interview besides appeared to demo important advancement.


The restrictions of generalizing the experiences of five people utilizing a little rural occupancy support undertaking to other populations or services are acknowledged. Even as portion of a service rating it can non be ignored that those who did non hold to take portion in the survey may hold had really different experiences. However, this survey sought to understand in deepness and single experiences of how a occupancy support undertaking ( for those sing substance abuse issues ) had contributed to their recovery.The experiences of this sample were really positive. It is deserving observing that this sample were preponderantly a intervention seeking population when they started utilizing occupancy support, chiefly alcohol users and by and large older therefore this survey may non reflect the experiences of younger people, non intervention seeking populations and/or drug users.This service was besides portion of a specialist dependence service, and although the occupancy support was non considered intervention, it can non be discounted that this may hold had influence. Most suppliers of occupancy support services are generic.

In add-on this survey did n’t seek the positions of how other services had contributed to their recovery. Given that the bulk of the sample had been involved with dependence services when they were referred to the undertaking and had found them helpful it is hard to dismiss a possible multi-agency affect on their recovery experience.Another country highlighted by this survey is the built-in job of generalizing the Scots authorities definition of recovery for drug users ( Scots Government, 2008 p23 ) to alcohol users. There is an premise that everyone who experiences drug jobs is working “ towards a drug free life ” as the ultimate end of recovery in relation to substance usage.

What appeared to work for this sample is that the service worked towards their single ends, even if the grounds may hold suggested a different path or the individual did n’t see themselves to be in recovery. Again this is the experiences of a really little sample who were preponderantly alcohol users and although can non be generalised it is an country for more research/debate in relation to specifying recovery.The reported experience of this sample supported the wider position that recovery is much more than ceasing/controlling substance usage, affecting mending individuality, self betterment, deciding jobs and holding aspirations.An of import country identified by this survey is how this service helped towards recovery. The service was perceived to hold responded to all their identified issues. Respondents identified the importance of practical support in relation to deciding mundane life jobs, nevertheless what was important was the sensed relationship with both the service and workers and how this had facilitated their recovery.There is a demand for more probe in relation to how recovery is defined ( peculiarly in relation to alcohol users ) , and how services, both dependence and/or occupancy support services can ease recovery.