In recent years, peer recovery support services have become an accepted part of the treatment of substance use disorders, providing a more extensive array of services than typically associated with mutual support groups. Peer providers may help consumers set recovery goals, develop a plan, and work toward and maintain recovery. In this literature review, the last in the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series, the authors review the evidence supporting peer recovery support services, noting that more research is needed to distinguish the effects of peer recovery support from other recovery support activities.

Substantial evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of supported employment. Policy makers should consider including it as a covered service. Future research is needed for subgroups such as young adults, older adults, people with primary substance use disorders, and those from various cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.

Residential treatment for substance use disorders shows value and merits ongoing consideration by policy makers for inclusion as a covered benefit in public and commercially funded plans. However, research with greater specificity and consistency is needed.

Objective Substance abuse intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) are direct services for people with substance use disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders who do not require medical detoxification or 24-hour supervision. IOPs are alternatives to inpatient and residential treatment. They are designed to establish psychosocial supports and facilitate relapse management and coping strategies. This article assesses their evidence base. Methods Authors searched major databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. They identified 12 individual studies and one review published between 1995 and 2012. They chose from three levels of research evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. Results Based on the quality of trials, diversity of settings, and consistency of outcomes, the level of evidence for IOP research was considered high. Multiple randomized trials and naturalistic analyses compared IOPs with inpatient or residential care; these types of services had comparable outcomes. All studies reported substantial reductions in alcohol and drug use between baseline and follow-up. However, substantial variability in the operationalization of IOPs and outcome measures was apparent. Conclusions IOPs are an important part of the continuum of care for alcohol and drug use disorders. They are as effective as inpatient treatment for most individuals seeking care. Public and commercial health plans should consider IOP treatment as a covered health benefit. Standardization of the elements included in IOPs may improve their quality and effectiveness.

Recovery housing appears to be an important component in the continuum of care for some individuals. However, replication of study findings with greater specificity and in more settings is needed.