This research was conducted under the auspices of the Behavioral Health Leadership Institute as part of an evaluation of the Project Connections program. The evaluation was funded through the State of Maryland, Office of Transformation as well as funding from the following foundations: The Isabel and Zanvyl Krieger Foundation, The Leonard and Helen R. Stulman Foundation, the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation.
PSYCHOSOCIAL STRENGTHS AND NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME SUBSTANCE ABUSERS IN RECOVERY
Article first published online: 13 DEC 2012
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Community Psychology
Volume 41, Issue 1, pages 19–34, January 2013
How to Cite
Mendelson, T., Dariotis, J. K. and Agus, D. (2013), PSYCHOSOCIAL STRENGTHS AND NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME SUBSTANCE ABUSERS IN RECOVERY. J. Community Psychol., 41: 19–34. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21507
We acknowledge the invaluable support of the staff at Dee's Place. We thank project coordinators Jessica Lescano, Elizabeth Wieand, and Adam Hoffberg, as well as our other research staff members. We also gratefully acknowledge our research participants.
- Issue published online: 13 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 13 DEC 2012
- State of Maryland, Office of Transformation
- The Isabel and Zanvyl Krieger Foundation
- The Leonard and Helen R. Stulman Foundation
- the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation
Psychosocial heterogeneity among recovering substance users is not well understood. Cluster analysis was used to identify subgroups with distinct psychosocial profiles among a low-income sample attending a community recovery center (n = 151). Psychosocial characteristics assessed included depressive symptoms, perceived social support, self-efficacy, and coping. A 3-cluster solution explained the most variance in the constructs assessed (R2 = 0.72). The largest cluster (38.4% of the sample) was characterized as “distressed,” with high emotional distress and few psychosocial resources. The second largest (34.2%) was characterized as “adjusted” because of its generally positive pattern of psychosocial functioning. The smallest (27.4%) was characterized as “resilient” because this cluster displayed emotional strengths despite low perceived social support. Findings have implications for tailoring interventions for this vulnerable population.