Public perceptions of opioid misuse recovery and related resources in a nationally representative sample of United States adults.

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Addiction Pub Date : 2024-10-20 DOI:10.1111/add.16692
Olivia Golan, Alex Kresovich, Christina Drymon, Lori Ducharme, Elizabeth Flanagan Balawajder, Mateusz Borowiecki, Phoebe Lamuda, Bruce Taylor, Harold Pollack, John Schneider
{"title":"Public perceptions of opioid misuse recovery and related resources in a nationally representative sample of United States adults.","authors":"Olivia Golan, Alex Kresovich, Christina Drymon, Lori Ducharme, Elizabeth Flanagan Balawajder, Mateusz Borowiecki, Phoebe Lamuda, Bruce Taylor, Harold Pollack, John Schneider","doi":"10.1111/add.16692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To understand how the US public defines recovery from opioid misuse and the recovery-related resources it views as most helpful, and to compare differences by opioid misuse history and demographic characteristics.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Observational study of data from the nationally representative AmeriSpeak® Panel survey administered in October/November 2021.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>6515 adults (≥ 18 years).</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Respondents ranked 10 definitions of recovery (religious in nature; spiritual in nature; physical/mental in nature; contributing to society; enhanced quality of life; seeking professional help; having a sense of purpose; moderate/controlled substance use; no drug use; abstaining from all substance use) and 9 resources that might contribute to recovery (primary care physician; intensive inpatient program; residential rehabilitation program; self-help group; therapist/psychologist/social worker; prescribed medication; talking to family/friends; spiritual/natural healer; faith-based organization). We explored differences in rankings by opioid misuse history (personal vs. family/friend vs. no history) and demographic characteristics (race, sex, age) using multivariable ordinal logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Seeking professional help was the most endorsed recovery definition overall [mean (M) = 6.97, standard error (SE) = 0.03]. Those with personal opioid misuse history ranked enhanced quality of life (B = 0.16, P = 0.049) and having a sense of purpose (B = 0.16, P = 0.029) significantly higher, and ranked abstaining from substance use (B = -0.20, P = 0.009) significantly lower as recovery definitions than those without a history of opioid misuse. Compared with White respondents, Black (B = 0.60, P < 0.001) and Hispanic (B = 0.55, P < 0.001) respondents defined recovery as more religious in nature. Residential rehabilitation program was identified as the most helpful resource for recovery (M = 7.16, SE = 0.02), while prescribed medication received a relatively low ranking overall (M = 4.05, SE = 0.03). Those with family/friend opioid misuse history ranked prescribed medication as less helpful than others (B = -0.14, P = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The general US public's views around recovery from opioid misuse appear to focus on abstinence and formal treatment receipt, while people with a history of opioid misuse place less emphasis on abstinence and greater emphasis on other aspects of well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16692","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To understand how the US public defines recovery from opioid misuse and the recovery-related resources it views as most helpful, and to compare differences by opioid misuse history and demographic characteristics.

Design: Observational study of data from the nationally representative AmeriSpeak® Panel survey administered in October/November 2021.

Setting: United States.

Participants: 6515 adults (≥ 18 years).

Measurements: Respondents ranked 10 definitions of recovery (religious in nature; spiritual in nature; physical/mental in nature; contributing to society; enhanced quality of life; seeking professional help; having a sense of purpose; moderate/controlled substance use; no drug use; abstaining from all substance use) and 9 resources that might contribute to recovery (primary care physician; intensive inpatient program; residential rehabilitation program; self-help group; therapist/psychologist/social worker; prescribed medication; talking to family/friends; spiritual/natural healer; faith-based organization). We explored differences in rankings by opioid misuse history (personal vs. family/friend vs. no history) and demographic characteristics (race, sex, age) using multivariable ordinal logistic regression.

Findings: Seeking professional help was the most endorsed recovery definition overall [mean (M) = 6.97, standard error (SE) = 0.03]. Those with personal opioid misuse history ranked enhanced quality of life (B = 0.16, P = 0.049) and having a sense of purpose (B = 0.16, P = 0.029) significantly higher, and ranked abstaining from substance use (B = -0.20, P = 0.009) significantly lower as recovery definitions than those without a history of opioid misuse. Compared with White respondents, Black (B = 0.60, P < 0.001) and Hispanic (B = 0.55, P < 0.001) respondents defined recovery as more religious in nature. Residential rehabilitation program was identified as the most helpful resource for recovery (M = 7.16, SE = 0.02), while prescribed medication received a relatively low ranking overall (M = 4.05, SE = 0.03). Those with family/friend opioid misuse history ranked prescribed medication as less helpful than others (B = -0.14, P = 0.003).

Conclusions: The general US public's views around recovery from opioid misuse appear to focus on abstinence and formal treatment receipt, while people with a history of opioid misuse place less emphasis on abstinence and greater emphasis on other aspects of well-being.

具有全国代表性的美国成年人样本中公众对阿片类药物滥用康复及相关资源的看法。
目的:了解美国公众如何定义阿片类药物滥用后的康复以及他们认为最有帮助的康复相关资源,并比较不同阿片类药物滥用史和人口特征的差异:设计:对 2021 年 10 月/11 月进行的具有全国代表性的 AmeriSpeak® Panel 调查数据进行观察研究:地点:美国:6515名成年人(≥18岁):受访者对康复的 10 个定义(宗教性质;精神性质;身体/心理性质;对社会的贡献;提高生活质量;寻求专业帮助;有目标感;适度/控制药物使用;不使用药物;戒除所有药物使用)和可能有助于康复的 9 种资源(初级保健医生;强化住院计划;住院康复计划;自助小组;治疗师/心理学家/社会工作者;处方药物;与家人/朋友交谈;精神/自然治疗师;信仰组织)进行了排名。我们使用多变量序数逻辑回归法探讨了阿片类药物滥用史(个人与家人/朋友与无滥用史)和人口统计学特征(种族、性别、年龄)在排名上的差异:总体而言,寻求专业帮助是最受认可的康复定义[平均值(M)= 6.97,标准误差(SE)= 0.03]。与无阿片类药物滥用史的受访者相比,有阿片类药物滥用史的受访者对提高生活质量(B = 0.16,P = 0.049)和有目标感(B = 0.16,P = 0.029)的认可度明显较高,而对戒断药物使用(B = -0.20,P = 0.009)的认可度则明显较低。与白人受访者相比,黑人受访者(B = 0.60,P = 0.009)的康复定义明显低于无阿片类药物滥用史的受访者:美国公众对阿片类药物滥用康复的看法似乎侧重于戒断和接受正规治疗,而有阿片类药物滥用史的人则不太重视戒断,而更重视其他方面的福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信