Abstract
PurposeThe possibility of recovery for persons with co-occurring addiction and mental health problems has been contested. Though, recent studies show that recovery might happen, but without connection to specific treatment interventions. The purpose of this paper is to analyse professionals’ perceptions of their contribution to improvement.Design/methodology/approachIn all, 15 experienced professionals were interviewed. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.FindingsRecovery processes were dependent of the persons’ access to different forms of recovery capital (RC). Lack of RC was often associated with lack of trust in one’s self and others (identity and personal capital). Professionals had to be accepted as trustful agents through co-creating changes in the person’s life. Trusting a professional might be a basis for trusting one’s self as an agent in one’s recovery process and develop a social network (identity and relationship capital). Other aspects stressed by the professionals were to manage their own fragmentized organisations and societal shortcomings (economic capital).Practical implicationsRecovery has been described as a profoundly individual journey. However, it is also deeply social, involving other persons and contextual factors. Focusing on just one level might counteract the complex work behind double recovery.Originality/valueImprovement was described as dependent on the presence of personal, inter-personal, organisational and societal factors. The findings give a deep and concrete understanding of the process constituting the development of a working alliance and its dependence on factors outside the direct relation between the staff member and the person.
Highlights
Mental health and alcohol and drug (AOD) problems have been, and sometimes still are, considered as chronic illnesses
Our findings pointed out the importance of combining interventions around: the lack of trust that often develops in a life characterised by mental health and AOD problems, the need to counteract problems created by the different aims, agendas and cultures of diverse agencies, and societal dis-functions regarding the material basis for a normal everyday life for persons in recovery
A specific finding was how the professionals differentiated the persons according to their previous experiences of trustful relations and the current availability of resources from their social network
Summary
Mental health and alcohol and drug (AOD) problems have been, and sometimes still are, considered as chronic illnesses. Persons with co-occurring AOD and mental health problems have been considered as struggling against double troubles (Davidson et al, 2008) and as having even more limited possibilities to recover (Davidson and White, 2007). The notion of recovery was introduced in the mental health field during the second part of the last century (Warner, 1985/2004). The possibility of recovery has even become accepted regarding problems with (AOD) (Blomqvist, 1996). The concept of “double recovery” was introduced regarding persons with “double troubles” (Davidson et al, 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
