Background: Although mortality attributed to illicit drugs is a significant contributor to the overall number of deaths worldwide, knowledge relating to the consequences for those bereaved by drugrelated deaths (DRDs) is scarce. Since individuals with substance use disorders are prone to stigma, there is an urgent need for knowledge about the occurrence and content of stigmatization of those bereaved by DRDs. Method: A mixed methods approach was used. In total, 255 participants (parents, siblings, children, partners, other family members and close friends) who had lost a person to a DRD were recruited. Thematic and descriptive analyses were undertaken on data derived from open-ended and standardized questions from a large survey exploring systematically the contents of interpersonal communication experienced by participants following their bereavement. Result: Nearly half of the respondents reported experiencing derogatory remarks from close/extended family and friends, work colleagues, neighbors, media/social media and professionals. The main themes were dehumanizing labeling, unspoken and implicit stigma, blaming of the deceased and that death was the only and the best outcome. The remarks were negative and powerful despite being directed at people in crisis and originating from individuals close to the bereaved participants. Conclusion: Individuals bereaved by DRDs experience harsh and stigmatizing communications reflecting the existing societal stigma toward drug users. This contributes to the marginalization of grieving individuals at a time when they may require support. Making people aware that stigma occurs, why it happens and how it is transmitted in society can help reduce it and its adverse consequences.

The concepts of identity and recovery capital are recognized as being an embedded part of moving away from a life dominated by drug use. However, the link between these two concepts and the effect of broader social structures, and the normative assumptions underpinning the condition of recovery, is less explored. This article focuses on the social practices of everyday life in the foreground of identity formation, meaning that “who I am” is an inseparable part of “what I do.” A narrative approach was employed to analyze qualitative follow-up data extracted from 48 in-depth interviews with 17 males and females with drug-using experience that were conducted posttreatment on three separate occasions over a period of 2.5 years. Theories of identity formation were employed to analyze the interdependent dynamic between social structure, persona and social resources, and way of life and identity. The analyses identified four narratives related to how people present themselves through the process of changing practices. Following the work of Honneth, we argue that the positive identity formation revealed in these narratives is best understood as a struggle for recognition via the principle of achievement. However, the participants’ self-narratives reflected cultural stories—specified as formula stories—of “normality,” “addiction,” and the “addict,” which work into the concepts of self and confine options of storying experiences during the recovery process. This study demonstrate that the process of recovery is culturally embedded and constitutes a process of adaption to conventional social positions and roles. We suggest challenging dominant discourses related to “addiction as a disease” and “normality” in order to prevent stigma related to drug use and recovery. In so doing, it may contribute to broaden conditions for identity (trans)formation for people in recovery.

There is a need for more knowledge on how people with substance use problems (SUPs) understand and experience user involvement when receiving care. In this systematic review, we identify and reanalyse the existing qualitative research that explores how people with lived experiences of substance use understand user involvement, and their experiences of key practices for achieving user involvement. We systematically searched seven electronic databases. We applied Noblit and Hare’s meta-ethnography, revised by Malterud, to identify, translate, and summarise the studies. The electronic search resulted in 2065 articles. We conducted a full-text evaluation of 63 articles, of which 12 articles met the inclusion criteria. The primary studies’ synthesis reveals three different understandings of user involvement: user involvement as joint meaning production, points of view represented, and user representation in welfare services. Key practices for achieving user involvement involved seeing and respecting the service user as a unique person, the quality of the interactional process, and the scope of action for people with SUPs, as well as professionals, including issues of stigma, power, and fatalism. The metasynthesis recognises the ambiguity of the concept of user involvement concept and the importance of including the service user’s perspective when defining user involvement. The analysis of key practices emphasises the importance of relational processes and contextual aspects when developing user involvement concepts.