Recovery support services as part of the continuum of care for alcohol or drug use disorders
Authors: Day Ed , Pechey Laura Charlotte , Roscoe Suzie , Kelly John F. 
Published: January 2025

Background

The definition of ‘recovery’ has evolved beyond merely control of problem substance use to include other aspects of health and wellbeing (known as ‘recovery capital’) which are important to prevent relapse to problematic alcohol or other drug (AOD) use. Developing a Recovery Oriented System of Care (ROSC) requires consideration of interventions or services (Recovery Support Services, RSS) designed to build recovery capital which are often delivered alongside established treatment structures. Lived experience and its application to the process of engaging people, changing behaviour and relapse prevention is an essential part of these services.

Aim

To map out the evidence base for RSS as part of guidance for commissioners of addiction services in each of the 152 local authorities in England.

Methods

The authors updated the findings of a 2017 systematic review of RSS through a further rapid scoping review, aiming to map out the extent, range and nature of research under six headings: (1) Peer‐based recovery support services (P‐BRSS); (2) Employment support approaches; (3) Recovery housing; (4) Continuing care and recovery check‐ups; (5) Recovery community centres (RCC); and (6) Recovery support services in educational settings. A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and PsychINFO databases was conducted. The abstracts of all articles published since 2017 were reviewed by two of the authors, and the full text versions of all relevant articles were obtained and relevant data extracted. A narrative review of the findings was then prepared, mapping them on to the ROSC continuum of care. The review was restricted to adults (over 18 years), but all substances and available outcomes were included.

Results

Four of the six forms of RSS were well supported by evidence. RCTs of interventions to increase levels of employment demonstrated large effect sizes, and continuing care interventions that extend treatment intervention into the early recovery phase have shown small but significant benefit. Peer‐delivered interventions to link people to ongoing support were associated with decreased rates of relapse and re‐admission, increased engagement, and increased social support for change. However, the variability in the design of these studies means that further work is required to clarify the effective components of the intervention. Studies of recovery housing have also shown positive results, including significant differences from standard care. No controlled studies exist to support RCCs or RSS in educational settings, but the complexity of these interventions and the wide range of potential outcome measures mean that other study designs may be more relevant.

Conclusions

This monograph provides a structure to help policy makers, commissioners and service providers describe and understand an emerging field of research. Recovery Support Services (RSS) are proving to have clinical, public health and cost utility. A rational social and fiscal response to endemic alcohol or other drug challenges should therefore include the more intensive acute care clinical services linked with more extensive community‐based RSS.