Kelly John F, O'Connor Jenny B, Klein Morgan R, Hoffman Lauren A, Eddie David, Vilsaint Corrie L, Bergman Brandon G, Hennessy Emily A
Recovery Research Institute, 151 Merrimac St, 4(th) Floor, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Recovery Research Institute, 151 Merrimac St, 4(th) Floor, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2025 Aug;175:209723. doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2025.209723. Epub 2025 May 28.
Increased recognition of the need for community-based substance use disorder (SUD) recovery support services (RSS) to complement and extend clinical care efforts has led to growth in a variety of RSS including recovery community centers (RCCs). Given increased national focus on expanding RCC research, this systematic review examined published research on RCCs.
We searched five publicly available empirical databases to retrieve existing studies on the effects of RCC participation through May 2024. Standardized summarization and quality assessment tools were utilized to provide systematic reporting and ratings of study quality.
Seven studies (participant Ns range = 78 to 3459) were included, none of which were randomized/non-randomized comparative effectiveness designs; four were single-group prospective/retrospective and three, cross-sectional. The longest follow-up duration was limited to 6-months. Participants were mostly white, male, with high clinical pathology, low socio-economic status, and low recovery capital; primary substance was inconsistently reported, but mostly opioids or alcohol. RCC participation duration and intensity were positively associated with improvements in substance use, recovery capital, and psychosocial functioning. Major limitations pertained to inadequate description of samples, no "intent-to-treat" analyses, lack of inferential analyses, and atheoretical delineations of tested models and variables.
Despite national growth of RCCs, the quantity and quality of existing evidence is limited. Where reported, participation appears to be correlated with reductions in substance use and improved well-being. The limited evidence suggests RCCs may serve as a distinct, visible community access point for individuals with high psychopathology and low recovery capital to access support and resources. Given the disparity between the observed growth and promising preliminary results of RCCs and lack of rigorous evaluation, this review highlights a compelling need for further research investment to provide better estimates of the potential clinical and public health utility of RCCs in the RSS landscape.
人们越来越认识到需要基于社区的物质使用障碍（SUD）康复支持服务（RSS）来补充和扩展临床护理工作，这导致包括康复社区中心（RCC）在内的各种RSS有所增加。鉴于国家对扩大RCC研究的关注度提高，本系统评价对已发表的关于RCC的研究进行了审查。
我们检索了五个公开可用的实证数据库，以检索截至2024年5月关于参与RCC的影响的现有研究。使用标准化的汇总和质量评估工具来提供系统的报告和研究质量评级。
纳入了七项研究（参与者人数范围为78至3459），其中没有一项是随机/非随机比较有效性设计；四项是单组前瞻性/回顾性研究，三项是横断面研究。最长随访时间限制为6个月。参与者大多为白人、男性，临床病理严重，社会经济地位低，康复资本少；主要物质使用情况报告不一致，但大多为阿片类药物或酒精。RCC参与时间和强度与物质使用、康复资本和心理社会功能的改善呈正相关。主要局限性在于样本描述不足、没有“意向性治疗”分析、缺乏推断性分析以及对测试模型和变量的非理论性描述。
尽管全国范围内RCC有所增加，但现有证据的数量和质量有限。据报告，参与似乎与物质使用减少和幸福感改善相关。有限的证据表明，RCC可能是心理病理严重且康复资本少的个人获取支持和资源的一个独特、可见的社区接入点。鉴于RCC的实际增长与有前景初步结果之间的差距以及缺乏严格评估，本评价强调迫切需要进一步的研究投资，以便更好地评估RCC在RSS领域的潜在临床和公共卫生效用。
