Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31234878›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2019

Partnering with persons in long-term recovery from substance use disorder: experiences from a collaborative research project.

Henning Pettersen, Morten Brodahl, Jeanette Rundgren, Larry Davidson, Ingrid Amalia Havnes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Henning PettersenNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Mental Health Division, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.O. Box 104, N-2381, Brumunddal, Norway. henningpettersen@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6150-9271
Morten BrodahlNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Mental Health Division, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.O. Box 104, N-2381, Brumunddal, Norway.
Jeanette RundgrenNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Mental Health Division, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.O. Box 104, N-2381, Brumunddal, Norway.
Larry DavidsonProgram for Recovery and Community Health, School of Medicine, Yale University, Erector Square 319 Peck Street, New Haven, CT, 06513, USA.
Ingrid Amalia HavnesNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4959 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Innlandet Hospital Trust · NOOslo University Hospital · NOYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Mental Health RecoveryResearchStakeholder ParticipationCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchFemaleHumansMalePeer GroupQualitative ResearchSubstance-Related DisordersCollaborative researchMethodological studyRecoverySubstance use disorder

Identifiers

PMID31234878
PMCPMC6591986
OpenAlexW2949377540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.