Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34729852›Full record

ReviewAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022

The science of recovery capital: where do we go from here?

David Best, Emily A Hennessy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A meta-review of the evidence on addiction recovery mutual help organizations.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Do posttreatment increases in social recovery capital mediate the relationship between lower internalizing symptoms and less substance use?Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Recovery capital: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Narrative Review of Nicotine and Alcohol Addiction Recovery Content on TikTok.Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Implementing a Recovery Capital Model Into Therapeutic Courts: Case Study and Lessons Learned.International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

David BestCriminology and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK.
Emily A HennessyRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5146-5823

Funding

Mechanisms of social identity, social networks, and recovery capital: Implicationsfor recoveryK01AA028536 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI HENNESSY, EMILY A · 2020 to 2024
$895k
NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA028536NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA028536-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of recovery capital (RC) has emerged in studies and discussions of the addiction recovery process and as a potential metric and marker for recovery gains. Although conceptual and applied development of the concept in the 20 years since the term was coined has increased, there remains insufficient clarity of key domains, factors and best practice research and applications for populations experiencing addiction. We aimed to review progress around the conceptualisation and operationalisation of RC and to consider future directions for a science of recovery capital.

methodWe provided a brief overview of theoretical foundations and advances, empirical measurement and application in treatment and continuing care settings. We next introduced four primary areas for addiction science to address, namely: (i) conceptual development (e.g. how RC domains are unique, but interrelated entities, valence of RC), (ii) empirical testing, adequacy of measurement and analysis, (iii) directions for novel application in treatment and recovery settings and (iv) dissemination and communication to policy, practice and lived experience groups. In this review, we also focussed on some of the challenges that must be addressed for a science of RC, which could produce long-term impact in treatment and policy.

resultsDespite burgeoning empirical work on RC, its application and translation has been unsystematic. The field currently relies on self-report questionnaires for the development of the theory and quantification of RC. Therefore, there is an urgent need for rigorous and systematic conceptual and empirical development of RC.

conclusionsA formal collaboration between scholars, practitioners and experts by experience worldwide would move recovery capital forward in an empirically driven and culturally appropriate manner, as would testing its applicability at individual, organisational and societal levels.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesContinuity of careevaluationmeasurementrecoveryrecovery capitalstrengths-based approaches

Identifiers

PMID34729852
PMCPMC9209877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.