Suppr超能文献

如何衡量康复社区中心的成效:从一项针对康复社区中心主任的全国性调查中获得的见解

How to measure the effectiveness of recovery community centers: insights gained from a nationwide survey of directors of RCCs.

作者信息

Hoeppner Bettina B, Williamson Alivia C, Simpson Hazel, DeCristofaro Diadora, Weerts Catherine, Riggs Marion J, Futter Allison, Mericle Amy A, Rutherford Philip X, Hoffman Lauren A, Rao Vinod, McCarthy Patty, Ojeda Julia, Hoeppner Susanne S

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2025 Jul 23;13:1532812. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1532812. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Recovery community centers (RCCs) are a rapidly growing source of support for many Americans seeking or in recovery from substance use disorder. Research that examines the effectiveness of RCCs is critically needed. Determining how the "effectiveness" of RCCs ought to be measured, however, is challenging, because RCCs seek to confer benefits on multiple levels and because recovery is a multi-faceted construct. RCC directors are uniquely suited to provide insight into what outcome measures may be viable to use to capture the impact of RCCs on their participants.

METHODS

As part of a nationwide survey of RCCs directors ( = 122/198, 62% response rate), we presented seven measures to RCC directors: process measures (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8); a list of ways in which RCCs confer benefit) and longer term outcome measures (Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC-10); EUROHIS-QOL; Substance Use Recovery Evaluator (SURE); PERMA Profiler; a list of life goals). We then asked RCC directors if they expected that RCC participants would show progress over time on these measures (yes/no), if the measure would be useful to demonstrate the impact of their RCC (yes/no), and which measure they felt was the best measure of the positive impact RCCs can make on RCC participants.

RESULTS

All measures had considerable buy-in from RCC directors: 87% or more of RCC directors said RCC participants would show progress on each measure, and 72% or more said that each measure would be useful to demonstrate the impact of their RCC. Most frequently, RCC directors endorsed as useful the list of ways in which RCCs confer benefit, the list of life goals, and the BARC-10 (≥95% of RCC directors each). RCC directors were split on which measure would be the best measure, with no single measure exceeding 26% of RCC directors rating it as the best of the seven presented scales.

CONCLUSION

Several existing scales resonate with RCC directors, yet little consensus regarding a single primary outcome variable exists. Close collaboration with RCCs is needed to ensure that research on the effectiveness of RCCs is congruent with how RCCs function and seek to confer benefit.

摘要

目的

康复社区中心(RCCs)正迅速成为许多寻求物质使用障碍康复或正在康复的美国人的重要支持来源。迫切需要开展研究以检验康复社区中心的有效性。然而,确定如何衡量康复社区中心的“有效性”具有挑战性,因为康复社区中心旨在在多个层面带来益处,且康复是一个多方面的概念。康复社区中心主任最适合提供见解,说明哪些结果指标可能适用于衡量康复社区中心对其参与者的影响。

方法

作为对康复社区中心主任的全国性调查的一部分(回复率为62%,198人中有122人回复),我们向康复社区中心主任展示了七个指标:过程指标(客户满意度问卷(CSQ - 8);康复社区中心带来益处的方式列表)和长期结果指标(康复资本简要评估(BARC - 10);欧洲健康与生活质量调查(EUROHIS - QOL);物质使用康复评估器(SURE);积极情绪、投入、人际关系、意义和成就量表(PERMA Profiler);生活目标列表)。然后,我们询问康复社区中心主任,他们是否预期康复社区中心的参与者在这些指标上会随时间取得进步(是/否),该指标对于证明其康复社区中心的影响是否有用(是/否),以及他们认为哪个指标最能衡量康复社区中心对参与者的积极影响。

结果

所有指标都得到了康复社区中心主任的广泛认可:87%或更多的康复社区中心主任表示康复社区中心的参与者在各项指标上会取得进步,72%或更多的主任表示每项指标对于证明其康复社区中心的影响都有用。康复社区中心主任最常认可康复社区中心带来益处的方式列表、生活目标列表和BARC - 10(每项均有≥95%的康复社区中心主任认可)。对于哪个指标是最佳指标,康复社区中心主任存在分歧,没有一个指标获得超过26%的康复社区中心主任将其评为所展示的七个量表中最好的。

结论

几个现有量表得到了康复社区中心主任的认同,但对于单一主要结果变量几乎没有达成共识。需要与康复社区中心密切合作,以确保关于康复社区中心有效性的研究与康复社区中心的运作方式以及寻求带来益处的方式相一致。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3343/12326742/72cbe6a47916/fpubh-13-1532812-g0001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验