"Returning to Ordinary Citizenship": A Qualitative Study of Chinese PWUD's Self-Management Strategies and Disengagement Model of Identity

Overview

Journal Behav Sci (Basel)

Date 2022 Aug 25

PMID 36004829

Authors

Apei Song

Zixi Liu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

How PWUD (people who use drugs) live under drug governance is an important research question. This study adopts a qualitative research method to explore how PWUD in China self-manage after perceiving the dilemma of incomplete citizenship and the social pressure brought by drug control arrangements. Through analysis of 130 PWUD's files and in-depth interviews with 10 interviewees (from the 24 preliminary interviews), this study found that PWUD developed action strategies of hidden mobility (spatial isolation), disconnection of past experiences (time isolation), instrumental actions, as well as narrative strategies of reframing themselves as ordinary citizens with attempts of reversing identity disadvantages. Further, PWUD's self-management strategies manifest as a disengagement model in which the actors (PWUD, not rehabilitation agencies) do not intend to develop integrative positive identities through dispersed, practiced behavioral strategies, but attempt to return to pre-addiction, non-socially exclusionary citizenship experiences. The disengagement model and its negative effect on PWUD's social integration help us reflect on the current implementation of rehabilitation projects and institutional settings of drug governance.

References

Heather N . A conceptual framework for explaining drug addiction. J Psychopharmacol. 1998; 12(1):3-7. DOI: 10.1177/026988119801200101. View

Volkow N, Michaelides M, Baler R . The Neuroscience of Drug Reward and Addiction. Physiol Rev. 2019; 99(4):2115-2140. PMC: 6890985. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00014.2018. View

Gunn A, Guarino H . "Not human, dead already": Perceptions and experiences of drug-related stigma among opioid-using young adults from the former Soviet Union living in the U.S. Int J Drug Policy. 2016; 38:63-72. PMC: 5302021. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.012. View

Nicksic N, Do E, Barnes A . Cannabis legalization, tobacco prevention policies, and Cannabis use in E-cigarettes among youth. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019; 206:107730. PMC: 6980691. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107730. View

Zwick J, Appleseth H, Arndt S . Stigma: how it affects the substance use disorder patient. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2020; 15(1):50. PMC: 7385978. DOI: 10.1186/s13011-020-00288-0. View

Milloy M, Wood E, Small W, Tyndall M, Lai C, Montaner J . Incarceration experiences in a cohort of active injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009; 27(6):693-9. DOI: 10.1080/09595230801956157. View

Eshun-Wilson I, Rohwer A, Hendricks L, Oliver S, Garner P . Being HIV positive and staying on antiretroviral therapy in Africa: A qualitative systematic review and theoretical model. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0210408. PMC: 6328200. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210408. View

Collins A, Boyd J, Mayer S, Fowler A, Kennedy M, Bluthenthal R . Policing space in the overdose crisis: A rapid ethnographic study of the impact of law enforcement practices on the effectiveness of overdose prevention sites. Int J Drug Policy. 2019; 73:199-207. PMC: 7147938. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.08.002. View

Shirley-Beavan S, Roig A, Burke-Shyne N, Daniels C, Csak R . Women and barriers to harm reduction services: a literature review and initial findings from a qualitative study in Barcelona, Spain. Harm Reduct J. 2020; 17(1):78. PMC: 7574529. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-020-00429-5. View

10.

Radojcic N . Building a Dignified Identity: An Ethnographic Case Study of LGBT Catholics. J Homosex. 2016; 63(10):1297-313. DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2016.1151698. View

11.

Dingle G, Cruwys T, Frings D . Social Identities as Pathways into and out of Addiction. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:1795. PMC: 4663247. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01795. View

12.

Berends L . Problematisation and centralised assessment in drug treatment sector reform. Int J Drug Policy. 2019; 80:102561. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.09.009. View

13.

Kotyuk E, Farkas J, Magi A, Eisinger A, Kiraly O, Vereczkei A . The psychological and genetic factors of the addictive behaviors (PGA) study. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018; 28(1):e1748. PMC: 6877275. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1748. View

14.

Pitt R . "Still looking for my Jonathan": gay Black men's management of religious and sexual identity conflicts. J Homosex. 2010; 57(1):39-53. DOI: 10.1080/00918360903285566. View

15.

Degenhardt L, Mathers B, Wirtz A, Wolfe D, Kamarulzaman A, Carrieri M . What has been achieved in HIV prevention, treatment and care for people who inject drugs, 2010-2012? A review of the six highest burden countries. Int J Drug Policy. 2013; 25(1):53-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.08.004. View

16.

Barratt M, Seear K, Lancaster K . A critical examination of the definition of 'psychoactive effect' in Australian drug legislation. Int J Drug Policy. 2016; 40:16-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.002. View

17.

Longabaugh R, Wirtz P, Zywiak W, OMalley S . Network support as a prognostic indicator of drinking outcomes: the COMBINE Study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010; 71(6):837-46. PMC: 2965482. DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.837. View

18.

Gardner E . Addiction and brain reward and antireward pathways. Adv Psychosom Med. 2011; 30:22-60. PMC: 4549070. DOI: 10.1159/000324065. View

19.

Seear K, Fraser S . The addict as victim: producing the 'problem' of addiction in Australian victims of crime compensation laws. Int J Drug Policy. 2014; 25(5):826-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.02.016. View

20.

Melamede R . Harm reduction--the cannabis paradox. Harm Reduct J. 2005; 2:17. PMC: 1261530. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7517-2-17. View