Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026
Hope, resilience, and ambiguous loss among affected family members of individuals with substance use disorders.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Florentin Alexia, Rice Kathleen
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Substance use disorders (SUDs) profoundly affect not only individuals but also their families. Affected family members (AFMs) frequently experience ambiguous loss (AL) - a form of loss marked by uncertainty and lack of closure - as their loved one is physically present but psychologically absent due to addiction. Despite its prevalence, limited quantitative research examines the role of psychological strengths such as hope and resilience in mitigating AL among AFMs. This study investigates the statistical associations of hope and resilience on AL, with demographic factors explored as potential moderators.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, quantitative study recruited 708 AFMs (e.g., spouses, parents, siblings, close friends "like family") of individuals with SUDs through the use of Qualtrics as the main recruitment medium. Participants completed the Ambiguous Loss Inventory Plus (ALI+), Adult Hope Scale (AHS), and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). Data were analyzed using multiple regression to examine statistical associations, and moderation analyses to assess the influence of age, gender, and relationship type.
RESULTS: Hope (β = -0.28, p < .001) and resilience (β = -0.23, p < .001) were both significantly and negatively associated with ambiguous loss, collectively accounting for 13.6% of the variance. Hope demonstrated a slightly stronger association with ambiguous loss than resilience. A second regression model supported the robustness of these associations (R2 = 0.042, p < .001). Moderation analyses indicated that age (β = -0.731, p < .001) and relationship type (β = 0.215, p = .014) were significantly associated with ambiguous loss, such that older age was linked to lower ambiguous loss and closer relationships were linked to higher ambiguous loss; however, no demographic variables significantly moderated the associations between hope, resilience, and ambiguous loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the universal protective role of hope and resilience in mitigating AL for AFMs, regardless of demographic differences. Addiction counselors should integrate evidence-based interventions such as solution-focused therapy, CBT, and positive psychology to cultivate hope and resilience in AFMs. Counselor supervisors and educators should ensure training emphasizes ambiguous loss and strength-based strategies to better support families impacted by SUDs.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, quantitative study recruited 708 AFMs (e.g., spouses, parents, siblings, close friends "like family") of individuals with SUDs through the use of Qualtrics as the main recruitment medium. Participants completed the Ambiguous Loss Inventory Plus (ALI+), Adult Hope Scale (AHS), and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). Data were analyzed using multiple regression to examine statistical associations, and moderation analyses to assess the influence of age, gender, and relationship type.
RESULTS: Hope (β = -0.28, p < .001) and resilience (β = -0.23, p < .001) were both significantly and negatively associated with ambiguous loss, collectively accounting for 13.6% of the variance. Hope demonstrated a slightly stronger association with ambiguous loss than resilience. A second regression model supported the robustness of these associations (R2 = 0.042, p < .001). Moderation analyses indicated that age (β = -0.731, p < .001) and relationship type (β = 0.215, p = .014) were significantly associated with ambiguous loss, such that older age was linked to lower ambiguous loss and closer relationships were linked to higher ambiguous loss; however, no demographic variables significantly moderated the associations between hope, resilience, and ambiguous loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the universal protective role of hope and resilience in mitigating AL for AFMs, regardless of demographic differences. Addiction counselors should integrate evidence-based interventions such as solution-focused therapy, CBT, and positive psychology to cultivate hope and resilience in AFMs. Counselor supervisors and educators should ensure training emphasizes ambiguous loss and strength-based strategies to better support families impacted by SUDs.