The Science of Recovery Capital: Where Do We Go From Here?

Plain-Language Summary

Twenty years after the term "recovery capital" was coined, this paper in Addiction takes stock of what the field has actually built. The concept has spread from theory into treatment services, continuing care, and policy conversations, and a growing family of instruments now measures it. But the authors are candid about the gaps: application and translation have been unsystematic, key domains still lack clarity, and the science leans heavily on self-report questionnaires. Their aim is to move recovery capital from a popular idea to a rigorous science.

To get there, the paper lays out four priorities: sharpening the concept itself, including how recovery capital domains interrelate and how capital can be negative as well as positive; testing it empirically with better measurement and analysis; finding novel applications in treatment and recovery settings; and communicating what works to policymakers, practitioners, and people with lived experience. The authors call for a formal worldwide collaboration among scholars, practitioners, and experts by experience to develop the field in an empirically driven and culturally appropriate way. It has become one of the field's touchstone agenda papers, cited by the Pew Charitable Trusts among others.