Rethinking recovery

Addiction

Volumn 112, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 758-759

  Lancaster, Kari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Consumer participation; drug policy; problematization; recovery; subjectivity; treatment

Indexed keywords

DRUG DEPENDENCE; HUMAN; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE;

HUMANS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84992221608     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/add.13552     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. McKay J. Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders. Addiction 2017; 112: 751–7.
2. Berridge V. The rise, fall, and revival of recovery in drug policy. Lancet 2012; 379: 22–3.
3. Lancaster K., Duke K., Ritter A. Producing the ‘problem of drugs’: a cross national-comparison of ‘recovery’ discourse in two Australian and British reports. Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26: 617–25.
4. Duke K., Herring R., Thickett A., Thom B. Substitution treatment in the era of ‘recovery’: an analysis of stakeholder roles and policy windows in Britain. Subst Use Misuse 2013; 48: 966–76.
5. McKeganey N. Clear rhetoric and blurred reality—the development of a recovery focus in UK drug treatment policy and practice. Int J Drug Policy 2014; 25: 957–63.
6. Neale J., Nettleton S., Pickering L. The Everyday Lives of Recovering Heroin Users. London: Royal Society for the Arts; 2012.
7. Neale J., Finch E., Marsden J., Mitcheson L., Rose D., Strang J. et al. How should we measure addiction recovery? Analysis of service provider perspectives using online Delphi groups. Drugs: Educ Prev Polic 2014; 21: 310–23.
8. Neale J., Panebianco D., Finch E., Marsden J., Mitcheson L., Rose D. et al. Emerging consensus on measuring addiction recovery: Findings from a multi-stakeholder consultation exercise. Drugs Educ Prev Polic 2016; 23: 31–40.
9. Neale J., Tompkins C., Wheeler C., Finch E., Marsden J., Mitcheson L. et al. ‘You're all going to hate the word ‘recovery’ by the end of this’: service users' views of measuring addiction recovery. Drugs Educ Prev Polic 2015; 22: 26–34.
10. Lancaster K., Ritter A., Stafford J. Public opinion and drug policy in Australia: engaging the ‘affected community’. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013; 32: 60–6.
11. Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users. League Treatment Service Users Project: Final Report. Canberra: Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL); 2008.
12. Rance J., Treloar C. ‘We are people too’: consumer participation and the potential transformation of therapeutic relations within drug treatment. Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26: 30–6.
13. Bacchi C. Analysing policy: what's the problem represented to be? Sydney: Pearson Education; 2009.
14. UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDC). The UK Drug Policy Commission Recovery Consensus Group: A vision of recovery. London: UKDC; 2008.
15. Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel What is recovery? A working definition from the Betty Ford Institute. J Subst Abuse Treat 2007; 33: 221–8.
16. Harris J., McElrath K. Methadone as social control: institutionalized stigma and the prospect of recovery. Qual Health Res 2012; 22: 810–24.
17. Bacchi C., Eveline J. Approaches to gender mainstreaming: what's the problem represented to be? In: Bacchi C., Eveline J., editors. Mainstreaming politics: gendering practices and feminist theory. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press; 2010, pp. 111–138.
18. Fraser S., valentine k. Substance and Substitution: Methadone Subjects in Liberal Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.