生活质量又好又好:采用混合方法研究长期(5年后)恢复和恢复资本

IF 0.9 Q3 Psychology
Andrew Collins, A. McCamley
{"title":"生活质量又好又好:采用混合方法研究长期(5年后)恢复和恢复资本","authors":"Andrew Collins, A. McCamley","doi":"10.1108/DAT-11-2017-0059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThe purpose of this paper is to compare quality of life scores in a long-term recovery population group (post five years) with a general population group and to explore how any differences might be explained by recovering individuals themselves in a small number of follow up qualitative interviews. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nA sequential explanatory mixed method design combining quantitative quality of life measure (WHOQOL-BREF, 1996) and six subsequent semi-structured individual interviews. The quality of life measure compared long-term recovery scores (post five years) with the general population group. The subsequent qualitative semi-structured interviews explored what the participants themselves said about their recovery. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThe quantitative data provide evidence of a significant difference in quality of life (WHOQoL-BREF) in two domains. The long-term recovery group (five or more years into recovery) scored higher in both the environment and psychological domains than the general population group. Of the long-term recovery group, 17 people who still accessed mutual aid scored higher in all four domains than those 23 people who did not. The interviews provide evidence of the this difference as result of growth in psychological elements of recovery, such as developing perspective, improvement in self-esteem, spirituality, as well as contributing as part of wider social involvement. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nThis study provides support for the quality of life measure as useful in recovery research. The empirical data support the concept of recovery involving improvements in many areas of life and potentially beyond the norm, termed “better than well” (Best and Lubman, 2012; Valentine, 2011; Hibbert and Best, 2011). Limitations: snowballing method of recruitment, and undertaken by public health practitioner. Some suggestions of women and those who attend mutual aid having higher quality of life but sample too small. \n \n \n \n \nPractical implications \n \n \n \n \nUse QoL measure more in recovery research. Public health practitioners and policy makers need to work with partners and agencies to ensure that there is much more work, not just treatment focused, addressing the wider social and environmental context to support individuals recovering from alcohol and drugs over the longer term. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nOne of small number of studies using with participants who have experienced long-term (post five years) recovery, also use of quality of life measure (WHOQOL-BREF, 1996) with this population.","PeriodicalId":44780,"journal":{"name":"Drugs and Alcohol Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/DAT-11-2017-0059","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of life and better than well: a mixed method study of long-term (post five years) recovery and recovery capital\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Collins, A. McCamley\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/DAT-11-2017-0059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe purpose of this paper is to compare quality of life scores in a long-term recovery population group (post five years) with a general population group and to explore how any differences might be explained by recovering individuals themselves in a small number of follow up qualitative interviews. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nA sequential explanatory mixed method design combining quantitative quality of life measure (WHOQOL-BREF, 1996) and six subsequent semi-structured individual interviews. The quality of life measure compared long-term recovery scores (post five years) with the general population group. The subsequent qualitative semi-structured interviews explored what the participants themselves said about their recovery. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe quantitative data provide evidence of a significant difference in quality of life (WHOQoL-BREF) in two domains. The long-term recovery group (five or more years into recovery) scored higher in both the environment and psychological domains than the general population group. Of the long-term recovery group, 17 people who still accessed mutual aid scored higher in all four domains than those 23 people who did not. The interviews provide evidence of the this difference as result of growth in psychological elements of recovery, such as developing perspective, improvement in self-esteem, spirituality, as well as contributing as part of wider social involvement. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nResearch limitations/implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis study provides support for the quality of life measure as useful in recovery research. The empirical data support the concept of recovery involving improvements in many areas of life and potentially beyond the norm, termed “better than well” (Best and Lubman, 2012; Valentine, 2011; Hibbert and Best, 2011). Limitations: snowballing method of recruitment, and undertaken by public health practitioner. Some suggestions of women and those who attend mutual aid having higher quality of life but sample too small. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPractical implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nUse QoL measure more in recovery research. Public health practitioners and policy makers need to work with partners and agencies to ensure that there is much more work, not just treatment focused, addressing the wider social and environmental context to support individuals recovering from alcohol and drugs over the longer term. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOne of small number of studies using with participants who have experienced long-term (post five years) recovery, also use of quality of life measure (WHOQOL-BREF, 1996) with this population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs and Alcohol Today\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/DAT-11-2017-0059\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs and Alcohol Today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-11-2017-0059\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs and Alcohol Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-11-2017-0059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文的目的是比较长期康复人群(五年后)与普通人群的生活质量得分,并探讨在少量随访定性访谈中康复个体自己如何解释任何差异。设计/方法/方法采用顺序解释混合方法设计,结合定量生活质量测量(WHOQOL-BREF, 1996)和随后的六次半结构化个人访谈。生活质量测量将长期恢复评分(5年后)与普通人群进行比较。随后的定性半结构化访谈探讨了参与者自己对康复的看法。结果:定量数据提供了两个领域生活质量(WHOQoL-BREF)显著差异的证据。长期康复组(康复5年或更长时间)在环境和心理方面的得分都高于普通人群。在长期康复组中,17名仍然参加互助会的人在所有四个领域的得分都高于23名没有参加互助会的人。访谈提供的证据表明,这种差异是由于康复的心理因素的增长,如发展的观点,自尊的改善,精神的改善,以及作为更广泛的社会参与的一部分作出贡献。本研究为生活质量测量在康复研究中的应用提供了支持。经验数据支持恢复的概念,包括在生活的许多领域的改善,并可能超出标准,称为“比好”(Best和Lubman, 2012;情人节,2011;希伯特和贝斯特,2011)。局限性:滚雪球式招募方法,由公共卫生从业人员承担。一些妇女和参加互助会的人的生活质量较高,但样本太小。实际意义在恢复研究中更多地使用生活质量测量。公共卫生从业人员和决策者需要与合作伙伴和机构合作,确保开展更多的工作,而不仅仅是注重治疗,处理更广泛的社会和环境背景,以支持从酒精和毒品中长期康复的个人。独创性/价值少数研究之一,研究对象为经历了长期(5年后)康复的参与者,并对该人群使用了生活质量测量(WHOQOL-BREF, 1996)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality of life and better than well: a mixed method study of long-term (post five years) recovery and recovery capital
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare quality of life scores in a long-term recovery population group (post five years) with a general population group and to explore how any differences might be explained by recovering individuals themselves in a small number of follow up qualitative interviews. Design/methodology/approach A sequential explanatory mixed method design combining quantitative quality of life measure (WHOQOL-BREF, 1996) and six subsequent semi-structured individual interviews. The quality of life measure compared long-term recovery scores (post five years) with the general population group. The subsequent qualitative semi-structured interviews explored what the participants themselves said about their recovery. Findings The quantitative data provide evidence of a significant difference in quality of life (WHOQoL-BREF) in two domains. The long-term recovery group (five or more years into recovery) scored higher in both the environment and psychological domains than the general population group. Of the long-term recovery group, 17 people who still accessed mutual aid scored higher in all four domains than those 23 people who did not. The interviews provide evidence of the this difference as result of growth in psychological elements of recovery, such as developing perspective, improvement in self-esteem, spirituality, as well as contributing as part of wider social involvement. Research limitations/implications This study provides support for the quality of life measure as useful in recovery research. The empirical data support the concept of recovery involving improvements in many areas of life and potentially beyond the norm, termed “better than well” (Best and Lubman, 2012; Valentine, 2011; Hibbert and Best, 2011). Limitations: snowballing method of recruitment, and undertaken by public health practitioner. Some suggestions of women and those who attend mutual aid having higher quality of life but sample too small. Practical implications Use QoL measure more in recovery research. Public health practitioners and policy makers need to work with partners and agencies to ensure that there is much more work, not just treatment focused, addressing the wider social and environmental context to support individuals recovering from alcohol and drugs over the longer term. Originality/value One of small number of studies using with participants who have experienced long-term (post five years) recovery, also use of quality of life measure (WHOQOL-BREF, 1996) with this population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs and Alcohol Today
Drugs and Alcohol Today SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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