4.1 Article

Peer Recovery Coaches Perceptions of Their Work and Their Implications for Training, Support and Personal Recovery

Journal

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL
Volume 59, Issue 5, Pages 962-971

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10597-022-01080-z

Keywords

Peer recovery coaches; Access to care; Substance use

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The peer recovery workforce, composed of individuals who have recovered from substance use, has grown rapidly. Peer recovery coaches offer a scalable and efficient approach to increasing service delivery in low-resource communities. However, integrating these coaches into existing recovery services faces barriers and challenges. A study involving peer recovery coaches reveals discordance between their perceived role and responsibilities as well as challenges affecting their own recovery processes. Promising policy and structural changes can support and enhance this growing workforce.
The peer recovery workforce, including individuals in sustained recovery from substance use, has grown rapidly in the previous decades. Peer recovery coaches represent a scalable, resource-efficient, and acceptable approach to increasing service delivery, specifically among individuals receiving substance use services in low-resource communities. Despite the potential to improve access to care in traditionally underserved settings, there are a number of barriers to successfully integrating peer recovery coaches in existing recovery services. The current study presents results from two focus groups composed of peer recovery coaches. Findings suggest that peer recovery coaches report discordance between their perceived role and their daily responsibilities and experience both inter- and intrapersonal challenges that impact their own recovery processes. These results point to several promising policy and structural changes that may support and enhance this growing workforce.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available