ArticleHarm reduction journal2019
Partnering with persons in long-term recovery from substance use disorder: experiences from a collaborative research project.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to co-create context-sensitive analyses of health service experiences: proposed guidelines for contextualist collaborative thematic analyses with co-researchers.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Article
- "I'm not a graduate or doctor, yet we are all together:" articulating a partnership model for community-engaged research.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Integrating People With Lived Experience of Carceral System Involvement Into Research: Lessons Learned From Ending the HIV Epidemic Research Teams.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2025Article
- How older adults recovering from substance use problems experience mattering.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Multiple psychological senses of community and community influences on personal recovery processes from substance use problems in later life: a collaborative and deductive reflexive thematic analysis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023Article
- In what ways do emerging adults with substance use problems experience their communities as influencing their personal recovery processes?Journal of community psychology · 2022Article
- Bridge over Troubled Water: Patients' Opportunities for Collective Participation in Substance Use Institutions through Research Circles.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Large and non-specific somatic disease burdens among ageing, long-term opioid maintenance treatment patients.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional research about substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is considered, among an increasing number of service users, to be disempowering and poorly reflective of their priorities. Thus, this methodological article sought to examine the experiences of a peer research group (PRG), whose four members were in long-term SUD recovery, and a principal investigator (PI), when collaborating on a study of SUD recovery. This article has also aspired to discern the influence of peer researcher participation on the research process. The purpose of the qualitative research project that formed the basis of this methodological study was to examine the reasons provided and strategies employed for abstaining from problematic substance use among persons with SUDs.
methodsThe project took place from 2015 to 2018, during which time individual interviews were conducted with 18 persons in recovery from SUDs. The PRG contributed to all parts of the project and worked alongside the PI in preparing the study, during early stages of data analysis, and while writing up the findings. In total, ten group discussions were held over the course of 3 years.
resultsThe study showed that the PRG offered important contributions with respect to developing the interview guide, preunderstanding among the PRG members, and discussing alternative forms of data collection. Key findings about how this collaborative research process was experienced relate to three matters: the group aspect of participation, the value of predictable routines and clear expectations, and the open sharing of private matters. The PI experienced the research process as having been enriched by alternative ways of asking questions and interpreting findings and as an interactive arena for reciprocal social and professional support.
conclusionsWhen establishing a PRG while studying recovery processes, it can be advantageous to include several peer researchers with diverse lived experiences concerning substance use, treatment, and recovery. If possible, at least one peer researcher with formal training or qualitative research experience might be included. The PI should be trained in collaborating with peer researchers or should be part of a research environment in which it is possible to discuss methodological challenges with other researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.