Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40115346›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025

Recovery housing for substance use disorder: a systematic review.

Corrie L Vilsaint, Alex G Tansey, Emily A Hennessy, David Eddie, Lauren A Hoffman, John F Kelly

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A meta-review of the evidence on addiction recovery mutual help organizations.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effects of participation in a large, online community for substance use disorder recovery: A naturalistic, longitudinal study.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Corrie L VilsaintRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Alex G TanseyRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Emily A HennessyRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
David EddieRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Lauren A HoffmanRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
John F KellyRecovery Research Institute, Center for Addiction Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

Developing and testing an intervention to enhance recovery capital amid opioid use disorder pharmacotherapy: A pilot randomized trial of assertive linkage to recovery community centersK01DA055768 · NIDA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HOFFMAN, LAUREN A · 2022 to 2025
$753k
NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA055768
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recovery housing, an abstinence-based living environment, is the most widely available form of substance use disorder (SUD) recovery support infrastructure. This systematic review characterized the randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-experimental designs (QED) research on recovery housing. We conducted a search across PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL published prior to February 2024. For inclusion, studies had to compare recovery housing alone to a non-recovery housing condition. Our search identified 5 eligible studies including 3 RCTs and 2 QEDs, across 11 reports. Participants Ns ranged from 150 to 470 and follow-up durations were 6-24 months. Recovery housing interventions performed better than continuing care as usual/no intervention on abstinence, income, employment, criminal charges and to a lesser extent incarceration. Recovery housing also performed better than comparative interventions delivered in other types of residential settings (e.g., therapeutic communities) on increasing alcohol abstinence and reducing days of substance use, while also increasing income and employment rates. An exception was in study samples that had high percentages of formerly incarcerated women (90% or more) where reduced substance use was the only benefit of recovery housing when compared to other types of residential interventions and was inconsistent when compared to continuing care as usual/no intervention. Moreover, recovery housing demonstrated higher cost effectiveness than continuing care as usual/no intervention and comparative interventions. Based on quantity, quality, and support for the service, the existing level of evidence for recovery housing is considered moderate. Expanding access to recovery housing may enhance outcomes for individuals with SUD, in general, while producing cost saving benefits, but given the small number of high quality studies additional comparative trials are needed. Also, future research should identify specific sub-groups who may or may not benefit from recovery housing interventions and why, so as to develop and test suitably augmented housing models or identify helpful alternatives.

Indexed as

HousingSubstance-Related DisordersFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicalcohol useopioid useOxford houserecovery housingrecovery residencesober homesubstance usesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40115346
PMCPMC11922849

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.