Search

A public health approach to gambling has been accompanied by a wide understanding of gambling harms. This has led to the creation of conceptual frameworks to understand and itemize different gambling-related harms, dimensions of harms, and subjects of harms. The current paper presents a comparative review and synthesis of existing harm frameworks. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature review on existing harm frameworks in five scientific databases across the years 2000–2021. We included studies that aimed at creating a conceptual framework or synthesis of different level gambling harms at a population level. The final sample consists of seven papers that present four different models. Gambling-related harms span health, psychological, relationship, financial, cultural, work, and crime-related issues. Harms accrue to individuals (heavy gamblers, non-problem gamblers and nongamblers), but also to families, communities, and societies. Harms form a spectrum in terms of severity and temporality. Risk factors or determinants of gambling are often similar to the harmful consequences of gambling. The results are discussed in terms of gaps in current understanding of gambling harms, including increased communication between models, increased focus on severity levels and issues of causality, and a better incorporation of harms that stem from gambling provision rather than harmful gambling consumption. We conclude that framing harms as consequences of individual behavior remains predominant, and a shift of focus to the social and commercial determinants of gambling harms is needed. This also includes the development of societal level harm screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery is experienced in both positive and negative ways and this paper attempts to integrate the 'pains of desistance' approach into a recovery capital framework. Pains experienced as a result of negative recovery capital are often thought to stimulate motivations for positive behavioral change, usually through a 'rock bottom' type moment. Whilst recovery capital and barriers to recovery have been explored in the literature, conceptualizing these as push and pull factors, and exploring their dynamic interaction, especially at distinct phases of recovery has not. Toward filling these gaps, we use the life-narratives of 30 people in recovery to explore how the pains of recovery (push factors) alongside different forms of recovery capital (pull factors) impact upon and are managed differentially at distinct phases of the recovery journey. Findings indicate the pains of recovery rarely led to positive changes. Rather, a range of pull factors created and promoted positive changes. However, the life narratives reveal that recovery capital cannot be accrued or sustained without managing (eliminating or reducing) the pains of recovery. Overall, this work highlights the need for policy and practice to help reduce the pains of recovery, especially during early recovery to accelerate transition to more stable phases of recovery. As recovery is neither a linear pathway nor a journey without residual challenges for many people, there is much to be learned about effective ongoing management strategies in preventing a return to problematic use that utilize a push and pull framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery from illicit drug and alcohol use takes place over time and is characterised by a dynamic interaction between internal and external components. An integral part of all recovery journeys is effective community reintegration. After all, recovery is not mainly an issue of personal motivation rather it is about acceptance by family, by friends and by a range of organisations and professionals across the community. Therefore to support pathways to recovery, structural and contextual endeavours are needed to supplement individually-oriented interventions and programmes. One way to do this, is by introducing Inclusive Cities. An Inclusive City promotes participation, inclusion, full and equal citizenship to all her citizens, including those in recovery, based on the idea of community capital. The aim of building recovery capital at a community level through connections and 'linking social capital' to challenge stigmatisation and exclusion, is seen as central to this idea. Inclusive Cities is an initiative to support the creation of Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care at a city level, that starts with but extends beyond substance using populations. This paper describes (and gives examples of) how it is possible to use recovery as a starting point for generating social inclusion, challenging the marginalisation of other excluded populations as well by building community connections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since relapse is common among treated addicts, harm reduction efforts should be made to minimize their levels of risk in their reuse of drugs. This paper applies the social capital framework to analyze how a treated addict's social network affects the risk level of posttreatment drug use. Embeddedness in a pro-social network reestablished by a treated addict can facilitate positive social capital in the forms of tutelage of a normal life, informal social control from nondrug-using people, and lessening of perceived public discrimination. On the contrary, reentering a network of active addicts can produce negative social capital in the forms of tutelage of the addict lifestyle, lack of informal social control from nondrug-using people, and reinforcement of perceived public discrimination. The possession of positive social capital greatly enhances the treated addict's likelihood to reduce the risk level of posttreatment drug use, whereas the possession of negative social capital reduces such likelihood. Data used in this paper were extracted from a study of 200 male former clients of a voluntary residential treatment agency in Hong Kong. Implications of the findings for helping male treated addicts to generate positive social capital as a posttreatment harm reduction measure are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on a study on harm reduction among post-treatment drug addict men. Limitations of the study; Comment on the regression analyses used in the study; Discussion on the concepts of positive and negative social capital; Failure to include women in the study; Role of public housing authorities in providing housing for drug-program graduates that is located in districts far from their drug user friends; Suggestion that drug-program graduates who maintains contact with other users are associated with higher categories of post-treatment risk behavior.