Recovery capital: a systematic review of the literature

Abstract

Background: Recovery from a substance use disorder involves various supports addressing multiple interrelated factors. Recovery capital (RC) is a lens that could help identify distinct areas of assets that could be enhanced and barriers to be addressed in individuals’ recovery processes. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to map the existing RC research and theoretical evidence base and to provide readers and potential users of the construct areas for further attention.

Methods: Using systematic search methods, a literature search on RC was conducted. Articles were reviewed and relevant data was extracted and synthesized.

Results: Searches resulted in 38 reports representing 35 unique studies. Samples ranged from 4–703 participants (4885 total) and were described as male (M = 60.9%) and white (M = 72.1%). Sample age ranged 17.3–70 years (37.2 ± 64.61 years). RC has been studied in a range of diverse adult populations and many factors have been studied within its primary domains. Yet, authors are inconsistent in their use and reporting of RC conceptualization and efforts to quantify RC through a scale have not been rewarded with uptake in the research community.

Conclusions: Future researchers should consistently use key RC domains. Measurements of RC largely lack attention to community-level factors and should be further explored. RC should also be explored among specific populations, especially among youth and with particular attention to culture and intersectionality.

Keywords:

• Substance use
• systematic review
• recovery
• recovery capital

Acknowledgements

The author of this article would like to thank Andrew Finch, Craig Anne Heflinger, and Emily Tanner-Smith as well as the anonymous reviewers for their comments on previous versions of this article.

Disclosure statement

The author reports no conflict of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Notes

1 Most of the models and domains appear to be developed from the original qualitative research of Granfield and Cloud’s (1999) study, but several authors proposed new domains based on their qualitative research (Neale, Nettleton, & Pickering, 2014; Hewitt, 2007).