Emerging consensus on measuring addiction recovery: Findings from a multi-stakeholder consultation exercise

References

• Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. (2013). What recovery outcomes does the evidence tell us we can expect? Second report of the Recovery Committee. London: Author
   Google Scholar
• Burns, S., & MacKeith, J. (2012). Drug and alcohol star. Brighton: Triangle Consulting Social Enterprise Limited
   Google Scholar
• Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2006). National summit on recovery: Conference report. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
   Google Scholar
• Clark, W. (2008). Recovery-oriented systems of care: SAMHSA/CSAT’s public health approach to substance use problems & disorders. Aligning concepts, practice, and contexts to promote long-term recovery: An action plan. Philadelphia, PA: IRETA
   Google Scholar
• Duke, K., Herring, R., Thickett, A., & Thom, B. (2013). Substitution treatment in the era of “recovery”: An analysis of stakeholder roles and policy windows in Britain. Substance Use and Misuse, 48, 966–976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groshkova, T., Best, D., & White, W. (2013). The Assessment of Recovery Capital: Properties and psychometrics of a measure of addiction recovery strengths. Drug and Alcohol Review, 32, 187–194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1991). Communication and the evolution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press
   Google Scholar
• Home Office. (2012). Putting full recovery first – The recovery roadmap. London: Author
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. (2010). Drug strategy 2010: “Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery: Supporting people to live drug free life”. London: Author
   Google Scholar
• Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995). Consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal, 311, 376–380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keane, H. (2012). Editorial: Diagnosing drug problems and the DSM. Contemporary Drug Problems, 39, 353–370
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster, K., Duke, K., & Ritter, A. (2015). Producing the “problem of drugs”: A cross national-comparison of “recovery” discourse in two Australian and British reports. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 617–625
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudet, A.B. (2007). What does recovery mean to you? Lessons from the recovery experience for research and practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33, 243–256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudet, A.B. (2009). Environmental scan of measures of recovery. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
   Google Scholar
• Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
   Google Scholar
• McKenna, H., Keeney, S., & Hasson, F. (2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
   Google Scholar
• Mullen, P.M. (2003). Delphi: Myths and reality. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17, 37–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neale, J., Nettleton, S., & Pickering, L. (2011). What is the role of harm reduction when drug users say they want abstinence? International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 189–193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale, J., Pickering, L., & Nettleton, S. (2012). The everyday lives of recovering heroin users. London: Royal Society of Arts
   Google Scholar
• Neale, J., Nettleton, S., & Pickering, L. (2013). Does recovery-oriented treatment prompt heroin users prematurely into detoxification and abstinence programmes? Qualitative study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 127, 163–169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale, J., Finch, E., Marsden, J., Mitcheson, L., Rose, D., Strang, J.Wykes, T. (2014). How should we measure addiction recovery? Analysis of service provider perspectives using online Delphi groups. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 21, 310–323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale, J., Tompkins, C., Wheeler, C., Finch, E., Marsden, J., Mitcheson, L. … Strang, J. (2015). “You’re all going to hate the word ‘recovery’ by the end of this”: Service users’ views of measuring addiction recovery. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 22, 26–34
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale, J., & Strang, J. (2015). Philosophical ruminations on measurement: Methodological orientations of patient reported outcome measures (PROMS). Editorial. Journal of Mental Health, 24, 123–125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recovery Orientated Drug Treatment Expert Group. (2012). Medications in recovery: Re-orientating drug dependence treatment. London: National Drug Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
   Google Scholar
• Scott, C.K., & Dennis, M.L. (2002). Recovery management checkup (RMC) protocol for people with chronic substance use disorder. Bloomington, IL: Chestnut Health Systems
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. (2008). The road to recovery: A new approach to tackling Scotland's drug problem. Edinburgh: Author
   Google Scholar
• Thurgood, S., Crosby, H., Raistrick, D., & Tober, G. (2014). Service user, family and friends’ views on the meaning of a ‘good outcome’ of treatment for an addiction problem. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 21, 1–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, W. (1996). Pathways from the culture of addiction to the culture of recovery: A travel guide for addiction professionals (2nd ed.). Center City, MN: Hazelden
   Google Scholar