ABSTRACT
An ethnography, part of the larger New Hampshire Dual Diagnosis Study, discovered in a small subsample (n = 16) that clients participated in 1 (or sometimes 2) of 4 distinct and different social patterns of substance-use. These 4 patterns, (1) "the lone user," (2) "the small, closed social clique," (3) "the large, open user syndicate," and (4) the "entrepreneurial drug provider," manifest important social functions of such substance-use. These social functions need to be taken into account as case managers attempt to persuade clients to abstain from using substances, because changing one's substance-use immediately affects one's participation in these user networks. Case managers can understand the social pressures toward certain patterns of substance-use by attending to the social patterning of that use. Many social functions provided by these social patterns must be continued by other means if clients, once persuaded to attempt abstinence, are to be effectively supported in their sobriety.
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Social Support , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry) , Humans , Mental Disorders/therapy , Quality of Life , Substance-Related Disorders/rehabilitationABSTRACT
A two-year ethnography conducted among 16 dually diagnosed clients yielded two longitudinal findings. First, four "positive quality of life" factors were strongly correlated with clients' efforts to cease using addictive substances: (1) regular engagement in an enjoyable activity; (2) decent, stable housing; (3) a loving relationship with someone sober who accepts the person's mental illness; and (4) a positive, valued relationship with a mental health professional. Second, the study revealed that five "negative background factors" in participants' childhood homes were predictive of long-term continuation of substance use: (1) substance abuse in childhood home, (2) childhood household in dire poverty, (3) "non-functional" household members, (4) reporting of abuse imputed to care-givers, and (5) serious mental illness in household. The implications of these findings for treatment are discussed.