Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Apr;117(4):1139-1145.
doi: 10.1111/add.15732. Epub 2021 Dec 1.

The science of recovery capital: where do we go from here?

David Best  1 , Emily A Hennessy  2
Affiliations
Review

The science of recovery capital: where do we go from here?

David Best et al. Addiction. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The concept of recovery capital (RC) has emerged in studies and discussions of the addiction recovery process and as a potential metric and marker for recovery gains. Although conceptual and applied development of the concept in the 20 years since the term was coined has increased, there remains insufficient clarity of key domains, factors and best practice research and applications for populations experiencing addiction. We aimed to review progress around the conceptualisation and operationalisation of RC and to consider future directions for a science of recovery capital.

Method: We provided a brief overview of theoretical foundations and advances, empirical measurement and application in treatment and continuing care settings. We next introduced four primary areas for addiction science to address, namely: (i) conceptual development (e.g. how RC domains are unique, but interrelated entities, valence of RC), (ii) empirical testing, adequacy of measurement and analysis, (iii) directions for novel application in treatment and recovery settings and (iv) dissemination and communication to policy, practice and lived experience groups. In this review, we also focussed on some of the challenges that must be addressed for a science of RC, which could produce long-term impact in treatment and policy.

Results: Despite burgeoning empirical work on RC, its application and translation has been unsystematic. The field currently relies on self-report questionnaires for the development of the theory and quantification of RC. Therefore, there is an urgent need for rigorous and systematic conceptual and empirical development of RC.

Conclusions: A formal collaboration between scholars, practitioners and experts by experience worldwide would move recovery capital forward in an empirically driven and culturally appropriate manner, as would testing its applicability at individual, organisational and societal levels.

Keywords: Continuity of care; evaluation; measurement; recovery; recovery capital; strengths-based approaches.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests: EAH has no competing interests to declare. DB is a director of the Recovery Outcomes Institute (Florida, USA) who have a version of the REC-CAP tool (briefly discussed in the text) which is being sold in Canada and in parts of the US.

References

    1. Hennessy EA. Recovery capital: a systematic review of the literature. Addiction Research & Theory. 2017;25(5):349–60.
    1. Granfield R, Cloud W. Coming Clean: Overcoming Addiction without Treatment. Vol. 25. New York: New York University Press; 1999. 281 p.
    1. Cloud W, Granfield R. Natural Recovery from Substance Dependency: Lessons for Treatment Providers. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. 2001;1(1):83–104.
    1. Granfield R, Cloud W. Social context and “natural recovery”: The role of social capital in the resolution of drug-associated problems. SubstUse Misuse. 2001;36(11):1543–70. - PubMed
    1. Cloud W, Granfield R. Conceptualizing Recovery Capital: Expansion of a Theoretical Construct. SubstUse Misuse. 2008;43(12–13):1971–86. - PubMed

Publication types