Content uploaded by Ginnie Sawyer-Morris
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ginnie Sawyer-Morris on Nov 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Introduction and Significance
Work supported by an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the
National Institutes of Health under grant number U54-GM104941 (PI: Binder-McLeod).
Mentor Team: Terry L. Horton (Christiana Care Health Systems), Ronald Gallimore (UD; Psychological and Brain Sciences), Jean-Philippe
Laurenceau, (UD; Psychological and Brain Sciences), Rita Landgraf (UD; Health Sciences)
Additional research team members: Natalie Brousseau (UD, HDFS), Khadi Jackson (UD, HDFS), Kiera McNeil (UD, HDFS & CAS), Olivia
Malinowski (UD, HDFS), Lauren Rosen (UD, PSYC)
Substance use has been recognized as the leading public
health problem in the U.S., leading to more illnesses,
disabilities, and deaths than any other modifiable health
condition. Given the vast human, social, and economic
costs of the current opioid epidemic, there is an urgent
need for research that moves beyond examining short-
term treatment options to identifying services that can
help individuals maintain long-term recovery in the
community. Recovery residences (RRs) are one means of
doing so because they provide the recovery capital (i.e.,
economic and psychosocial resources, including free or
low-cost substance-free housing, peer support, and
counseling services) that are crucial to long-term
recovery. By enabling those in recovery to live in
supportive, substance-free, community-based
environments, RRs are believed to reduce the high
relapse rates that are seen among individuals leaving
acute treatment. This study will fill an important gap in
the SUD literature by elucidating whether, how, and for
whom RRs contribute to SUD recovery. Results will not
only contribute to the sparse evidence on RRs’
effectiveness, but will also inform interventions and
policies aimed at supporting long-term SUD recovery.
Results: Outcome Variables
Ginnie Sawyer-Morris, MS;1Colleen Mueller;1Jennifer L. Carrano, PhD;1Barry Bodt, PhD;2Valerie A. Earnshaw, PhD1
1 Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware
3 College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware
2School of Education, University of Delaware
Substance Use Disorder Recovery Among Individuals Living in Recovery Residences:
Descriptive Results from Baseline Data
Recruitment & Retention
Discussion
Participants are being recruited from 8 RRs in New
Castle County, Delaware that are run by two community
organizations (RR Group 1, RR Group 2). Recruitment is
ongoing through Fall 2019. Several evidence-based
strategies for maintaining retention rates > 80% among
SUD samples are being utilized. These include collecting
participants’ contact information (phone, email, home
addresses, and social media handles) and contact
information for multiple collateral contacts (i.e., family,
friends who know participants’ whereabouts). Incentives
are provided for each interview and researchers
maintain frequent contact with participants between
assessments.
Methodology
This study is utilizing a longitudinal design to collect self-
reported quantitative measures of participants’ recovery
capital (i.e., perceived stress, social support, and
internalized stigma) and substance use behaviors.
Participants are tracked monthly beginning with a
baseline survey, followed by 9 follow-up surveys that
take place both while participants reside in the RRs and
after they leave. Data collection is ongoing; preliminary
findings from descriptive analyses of baseline data are
presented herein.
Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of Enrollment and Retention by
Recovery Residence (RR) Organization Group
n %
Participants enrolled March
-August 2019 91 100%
Percentage of Participants Retained
87 95.6%
Participants enrolled by RR Group
RR Group 1 40 44.0%
RR Group 2 51 56.0%
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for Recovery Capital Outcomes at
Baseline (n = 91)
M(SD)/% Range
Outcome
variables
Social Support 2.77 (1.06) 0 –4
Perceived Stress 6.67 (2.77) 0 –14
Internalized Stigma 2.40 (1.10) 0 –4
Acknowledgements
Sample demographics. Descriptive results from completed
baseline surveys (n=91) indicate that participants were
fairly evenly split by home group (44% were recruited
from group 1 and 56% from group 2). Slightly more
females than males are enrolled in the study (56% versus
42.9% respectively), which can largely be explained by
differences in turnover rates in the homes, but which is
also in line with studies indicating that SUD prevalence
and treatment rates among females have been
increasing in recent years. The majority of participants
reported being non-Hispanic White (76.9%), despite
Census Bureau estimates showing that Whites comprised
just 69.5% of Delaware’s population in 2018. Although
national estimates show higher rates of alcohol use
among non-Hispanic Whites, no significant racial/ethnic
differences can be found for illicit drug use or for SUD
treatment rates, suggesting that non-Whites may be
underrepresented in the current sample.
Stress: Measured using the Perceived Stress Scale, a well-
validated ten-item scale assessing how often participants
experienced symptoms of stress within the past month.
Social Support:Measured using the modified Medical Outcomes
Social Support Survey (mMOS-SS).
Internalized Stigma: Internalized stigma (i.e., endorsing negative
beliefs and feelings about people with SUDs and applying them
to the self) is assessed using the Substance Use Stigma
Mechanisms Scale (SUSMS).
Substance Use Behaviors: Self-reported frequency of alcohol and
drug use in the past 30 days is assessed with a modified version
of the Risk Behavior Survey.
Primary Measures
Results: Enrollment and Retention
Results: Demographics
Outcome measures. Opioids (i.e., prescription pain
medications, heroin, and fentanyl/other synthetic opioids) are
the most commonly reported primary drug of use
(comprising more than 45%of the sample), followed by
alcohol (28%) and then cocaine (20%). The mean score of
Social Support within our sample was 2.77 out of a possible
max score of 4; some evidence has shown that social support
may facilitate SUD recovery by decreasing SUD severity
overtime, and maintaining treatment retention. Participants
reported overall high levels of perceived stress at baseline;
their average score (6.67) significantly differed from the
general population score (6.11;t(85) = 1.8915,p= .031]. The
mean score for Internalized Stigma was 2.4 indicating that, on
average, participants are tending towards higher levels of
internalized stigma, which is related to negative outcomes. In
the next phase of our study, we aim to examine whether and
how these outcomes change over time; we hypothesize that
social support will increase and internalized stigma and
perceived stress will decrease as a function of individuals’
time spent living in recovery residence.