Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35933398›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2022

The growth of recovery capital in clients of recovery residences in Florida, USA: a quantitative pilot study of changes in REC-CAP profile scores.

Sofia Härd, David Best, Arun Sondhi, John Lehman, Richard Riccardi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Implementing a Recovery Capital Model Into Therapeutic Courts: Case Study and Lessons Learned.International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology · 2025
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding Length of Stay in Recovery Homes.Journal of social work practice in the addictions · 2024
    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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sofia HärdDepartment of Social Work, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.
David BestDepartment of Criminology, Investigation and Policing, Room 16, Trinity Building, Leeds Trinity University, Horsforth, Leeds, LS18 5HD, UK. davidwilliambest@icloud.com.
Arun SondhiTherapeutic Solutions (Addictions), 4 Old Park Lane, London, W1K 1QW, UK. Arun.Sondhi@therapeutic-solutions.org.uk.
John LehmanRecovery Outcomes Institute (ROI), Inc, Boynton Beach, Florida, USA.
Richard RiccardiFellowship Recovery Community Organization, Inc, Margate, Florida, USA.
Aptevo Therapeutics (United Kingdom) · GBHealth Outcomes Solutions (United States) · USLeeds Trinity University · GBStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing evidence base around predictors of retention and completion in a range of recovery residence models, particularly Oxford Houses and Sober Living Houses, and recovery housing is recognized as a clearly evidenced area of recovery intervention. The aim of the study was to quantitatively assess recovery capital in a sample of recovery residence clients.

methodThe study used a repeated measures self-completion of a standardized recovery capital instrument (REC-CAP) for clients retained across various houses within one Level 2 recovery residence provider whose program was based on a 12-step approach. While 823 clients participated in the baseline assessment, a sample of 267 clients was achieved for six-month follow-up interview, based on those retained in the residence. A logistic regression model examined factors associated with retention and a repeated measures marginal mixed model evaluated the factors associated with changes in recovery capital between the baseline and the follow-up assessment.

resultsMembers of the group that remained in recovery residences were more likely to be older with a record of high participation in recovery groups, with greater drop-out among younger residents, female residents and those with an identified housing need. For those retained to follow-up, greater recovery capital growth was associated with employment, higher levels of social support and more recovery group involvement, as well as age and a higher quality of life. The need for family support was shown to reduce levels of recovery capital. However, those younger people who were retained reported better recovery capital growth during the initial six months of residence.

conclusionThe key conclusion is that while recovery capital generally increases during a stay in a recovery residence, it does not do so consistently across the sample population. This has implications for how pathways to recovery group engagement are supported for women and young people and how social support (encompassing housing, employment and family issues) is provided to those populations during periods of residence. This suggests the potential need for training and guidance for house managers working with these groups.

Indexed as

HousingSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescentFemaleFloridaHumansPilot ProjectsQuality of LifeREC-CAPRecovery capitalRecovery residenceRetention

Identifiers

PMID35933398
PMCPMC9356455
OpenAlexW4290018196

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.