Social support in recovery former users of psychoactive substances  in Montenegro: A survey study

Ena Grbović; Boban Mugoša

doi:10.2298/VSP180409104G

Ena Grbović University of Montenegro, Institute for Public Health of Montenegro
Boban Mugoša University of Montenegro, Institute for Public Health of Montenegro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP180409104G

Keywords: substance-related disorders;, therapeutics;, social support;, family

Abstract

Background/Aim. Social support can be a very powerful and beneficial force in the recovery process. Research of social support as an important component in the process of resocialization of former users of psychoactive substances, so far, has been neglected in Montenegro. However, one of the conditions for quality analysis whose outcome would involve examining of deeper causal relationships is examining of social support structure of the respondents. That is why the main goal of this study was to determine precisely dimension of social support, and its factorability. A special sub-aim was to identify latent structure of emotional support as specific dimension within the social support scale. Methods. The survey was conducted with 107 clients treated in the Public Institution for Accommodation, Rehabilitation and Resocialization of Users of Psychoactive Substances in Podgorica (Montenegro) from May 2014 to October 2016. The Multidimensional Social Support Scale (MSPSS) was used. It consists of 12 variables that measure three components of support: Family, Friends and Significant Others. The analysis of the main components with direct oblimin rotation was used to examine the factorability of the MSPSS. After factor analysis conducted, the reliability of the determined scale was tested by Cronbach alpha coefficient through discriminatory validity. Results. All three components showed statistically significant results (p < 0.05). The coefficient of correlation between Friends and Significant Other was 0.510, while between Significant Others and Family it scored 0.617. On the other hand, the coefficient of correlation between Significant Other and Family was 0.525. As we had assumed and as previous results in this area suggested there was a significant link between the Friends and Family components. Also, 85.1% of the respondents stated that social support is important (or extremely important) in the process of rehabilitation and resocialization. Conclusion. Survey emphasizes the important role of the family in the life of respondents. Social support has many benefits and it is often crucial to establishing successful recovery of former users of psychoactive substances.

Author Biographies

Ena Grbović, University of Montenegro, Institute for Public Health of Montenegro

Center for health promotion

Boban Mugoša, University of Montenegro, Institute for Public Health of Montenegro

Director of Institute of public health of Montenegro

Professor at Medical facuty Podgorica

References

Galanter M. Innovations: alcohol & drug abuse: spirituality in Alcoholics Anonymous: a valuable adjunct to psychiatric ser-vices. Psychiatr Serv 2006; 57(3): 307‒9.

Vassileva J, Georgiev S, Martin E, Gonzalez R, Segala L. Psycho-pathic heroin addicts are not uniformly impaired across neuro-cognitive domains of impulsivity. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011; 114(2‒3): 194‒200.

Nielsen DA, Ho A, Bahl A, Varma P, Kellogg S, Borg L, et al. For¬mer heroin addicts with or without a history of cocaine de-pendence are more impulsive than controls. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012; 124(1‒2): 113‒20.

Sarason I G, Sarason BR. Social support: mapping the con-struct. J Soc Personal Relat 2009; 26(1): 113‒20.

Taylor SE. Social support: a review. In: Friedman MS, editor. The handbook of health psychology. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press; 2011; p. 189‒214.

Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hy-pothesis. Psychol Bull 1985; 98(2): 310‒57.

Wall K, Aboim S, Cunha V, Vasconcelos P. Families and infor-mal support networks in Portugal: the reproduction of ine-quality. J Eur Public Policy 2001; 11(3): 213‒33.

Novak M, Černigoj-Sadar N, Dragoš S, Dremelj P, Ferligoj A, Hlebec V, et al. Omrežja socialne opore prebivalstva Slovenije. Ljubl¬jana: Inštitut RS za socialno varstvo; 2004. (Slovenian)

Saraceno C, Olagnero M, Torrioni P. First European quality of life survey: families, work and social networks. Dublin: Euro-pean Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2005.

Olagnero M, Meo A, Corcoran MP. Social support networks in im¬poverished European neighbourhoods. Eur Soc 2005; 7(1): 53‒79.

Wellman B, Wortley S. Brothers' keepers: situating kinship rela-tions in broader networks of social support. Sociol Perspect 1989; 32(3): 273‒306.

Schweizer T, Schnegg M, Berzborn S. Personal networks and so-cial support in a multiethnic community of Southern Califor-nia. Soc Netw 1998; 20(1): 1‒21.

Helgeson VS, Cohen S. Social support and adjustment to can-cer: reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention re-search. Health Psychol 1996; 15(2): 135‒48.

Antonucci TC. Social relations: An examination of social net-works, social support, and sense of control. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW, editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. 5th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2001. P. 427‒53.

Paugam S, Russell H. The effects of employment precarity and unemployment on social isolation. InI Gallie D, Paugam S, edi-tors. Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. P. 243‒65.

Böhnke P. Are the poor socially integrated? The link between poverty and social support in different welfare regimes. J Eur Soc Policy 2008; 18(2): 133‒50.

Spoth R, Redmond C. Effective recruitment of parents into fam¬ily-focused prevention research: a comparison of two strate¬gies. Psychology Health 1994; 9(5): 353–70.

Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidi-men¬sional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess 1998; 52: 30‒41.

Pituch KA, Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the so-cial sciences: analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2016: p. 345.

Tomori C, Go VF, Tuan le N, Huong NM, Binh NT, Zelaya CE, et al. In their perception we are addicts: social vulnerabilities and sources of support for men released from drug treatment centers in Vietnam. Int J Drug Policy 2014; 25(5): 897‒904.

Zhou K, Li H, Wei X, Li X, Zhuang G. Relationships between perceived social support and retention patients receiving methadone maintenance treatment in mainland China. Psy-chol Health Med 2017; 22(4): 493‒500.

Teoh Bing Fei J, Yee A, Habil M.H. Psychiatric comorbidity among patients on methadone maintenance therapy and its in-fluence on quality of life. Am J Addict 2016; 25(1): 49‒55. .

De Maeyer J, Vanderplasschen W, Camfield L, Vanheule S, Sabbe B, Broekaert E. A good quality of life under the influence of methadone: a qualitative study among opiate-dependent indi-viduals. Int J Nurs Stud 2011; 48(10): 1244‒57.

Yen CN, Wang CSM, Wang TY, Chen HF, Chang HC. Quality of life and its correlates among heroin users in Taiwan. Kaohsi¬ung J Med Sci 2011; 27(5): 177‒83.

Chen JP, Wang H, Liu L. Quality of life and related social sup-port for men who have sex with men among university stu-dents in Chongqing, China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2013; 34(9): 888‒92. (Chinese)

Shahzad S, Begum N, Malik S. Multi-dimensional perceived so-cial support as determinant of wellbeing in people with sub-stance use disorder. Int J Prev and Treat Subst Use Disord 2014; 1(2): 63‒70.