Looking beyond drugs: A scoping review of recovery in the context of illicit substance use among adolescents and young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite extensive literature exploring the harms associated with illicit substance use among young people who use drugs (YPWUD), the concept of "recovery" among this population has received significantly less attention. Addressing this literature gap can inform efforts to better support YPWUD as they pursue their goals. OBJECTIVE: To examine the qualitative literature on how young people (< 30 years of age) understand and navigate substance use recovery and healing in the context of illicit substance use, including how interventions and caregivers are implicated in these processes. METHODS: The design for this scoping review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and informed by Levac et al. refinements. We surveyed five bibliographic databases for English, peer-reviewed, empirical studies published between 1999 and 2023. Studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers. We charted, synthesized, and assessed studies for common themes. FINDINGS: A total of 28 articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Studies show varied definitions and enactments of recovery as part of a continuum of substance use care, frequently extending beyond the notion of recovery as abstinence. Caregivers providing emotional, material, and social support are crucial to recovery; however, the challenges of supporting a young person's recovery are manifold, including misaligned expectations about recovery definitions and processes. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the need for recovery-oriented care that aligns with young people's diverse and shifting needs, goals, and contexts. Recovery programs must range from harm reduction to abstinence-based approaches across institutional and non-institutional settings and actively engage YPWUD and caregivers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".