Socijalna podrška u periodu oporavka bivšim korisnicima psihoaktivnih supstanci u Crnoj Gori: Istraživačka studija
Scindeks Asistent Scindeks Asistent — Sistem za uređivanje časopisa
PDF (engleski)

Kako citirati

1.
Grbović E, Mugoša B. Socijalna podrška u periodu oporavka bivšim korisnicima psihoaktivnih supstanci u Crnoj Gori: Istraživačka studija . Vojnosanit Pregl [Internet]. 05. Maj 2021. [citirano 12. Juli 2026.];77(5). Dostupno na: https://asistent.ceon.rs/index.php/vsp/article/view/17102

Sažetak

Uvod/Cilj. Socijalna podrška ima veoma značajnu ulogu u procesu oporavka bivših zavisnika od psihoaktivnih sups­tanci. Istraživanje socijalne podrške kao važne komponente u pro­cesu resocijalizacije bivših korisnika psihoaktivnih sup­stanci, do sada je bilo zanemareno u Crnoj Gori. Međutim, jedan od uslova za kvalitetnu analizu, čiji ishod uključuje ispitivanje dub­ljih uzročnih odnosa, jeste ispitivanje struk­ture socijalne po­drške ispitanicima. Zbog toga je glavni cilj ovog rada bio da precizno odredi dimenziju socijalne podr­ške i njenu faktorsku vrednost. Poseban cilj bio je identi­fi­kacija latentne strukture emocionalne podrške kao speci­fične dimenzije unutar skale socijalne podrške. Metode. Istraživanje je uključilo 107 zavisnika lečenih u Javnoj usta­novi za smještaj, rehabilitaciju i resocijalizaciju korisnika psihoaktivnih supstanci u Podgorici (Crna Gora) u periodu od maja 2014.  do 1. oktobra 2016. godine. U istraživanju je korišćena Multidimenzionalna skala socijalne podrške (MSPSS) koja se sastoji od 12 varijabli koje mere tri komponente podrške: porodice, prijatelja i značajnih drugih. Analiza glavnih komponenti sa direktnom oblimin rota­cijom (direct oblimin rotation) korišćena je za ispitivanje fakto­ra­bilnosti MSPSS. Nakon sprovedene faktorske analize, pouz­danost skale je testirana pomoću Cronbach-ovog koeficijenta alfa (Cronbach alpha coefficient) kroz diskriminatornu validnost. Rezultati. Sve tri komponente pokazale su statistički zna­čajne razlike (p < 0,05). Koeficijent korelacije između komponenti Prijatelji i Značajni drugi iznosio je 0,510, dok je između Značajnih drugih i Porodice iznosio 0,617. S druge strane, koeficijent korelacije između Značajnih drugih i Porodice bio je 0,525, što ukazuje da postoji značajna veza između komponenti Prijatelja i Porodice. Takođe, 85,1% ispitanika navelo je da im je socijalna podrška važna (ili izuzetno važna) u procesu rehabilitacije i resocijalizacije. Zaključak. Istraživanje naglašava važnu ulogu porodice u životu ispitanika. Socijalna podrška ima puno prednosti i često je od ključnog značaja za uspešni oporavak bivših korisnika psihoaktivnih supstanci.

Ključne reči

zavisnost od supstanci;
lečenje;
socijalna podrška;
porodica
DOI: 10.2298/VSP180409104G

Reference

Galanter M. Innovations: alcohol & drug abuse: spirituality in Alcoholics Anonymous: a valuable adjunct to psychiatric ser-vices. Psychiatr Serv 2006; 57(3): 307‒9.

Vassileva J, Georgiev S, Martin E, Gonzalez R, Segala L. Psycho-pathic heroin addicts are not uniformly impaired across neuro-cognitive domains of impulsivity. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011; 114(2‒3): 194‒200.

Nielsen DA, Ho A, Bahl A, Varma P, Kellogg S, Borg L, et al. For¬mer heroin addicts with or without a history of cocaine de-pendence are more impulsive than controls. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012; 124(1‒2): 113‒20.

Sarason I G, Sarason BR. Social support: mapping the con-struct. J Soc Personal Relat 2009; 26(1): 113‒20.

Taylor SE. Social support: a review. In: Friedman MS, editor. The handbook of health psychology. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press; 2011; p. 189‒214.

Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hy-pothesis. Psychol Bull 1985; 98(2): 310‒57.

Wall K, Aboim S, Cunha V, Vasconcelos P. Families and infor-mal support networks in Portugal: the reproduction of ine-quality. J Eur Public Policy 2001; 11(3): 213‒33.

Novak M, Černigoj-Sadar N, Dragoš S, Dremelj P, Ferligoj A, Hlebec V, et al. Omrežja socialne opore prebivalstva Slovenije. Ljubl¬jana: Inštitut RS za socialno varstvo; 2004. (Slovenian)

Saraceno C, Olagnero M, Torrioni P. First European quality of life survey: families, work and social networks. Dublin: Euro-pean Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2005.

Olagnero M, Meo A, Corcoran MP. Social support networks in im¬poverished European neighbourhoods. Eur Soc 2005; 7(1): 53‒79.

Wellman B, Wortley S. Brothers' keepers: situating kinship rela-tions in broader networks of social support. Sociol Perspect 1989; 32(3): 273‒306.

Schweizer T, Schnegg M, Berzborn S. Personal networks and so-cial support in a multiethnic community of Southern Califor-nia. Soc Netw 1998; 20(1): 1‒21.

Helgeson VS, Cohen S. Social support and adjustment to can-cer: reconciling descriptive, correlational, and intervention re-search. Health Psychol 1996; 15(2): 135‒48.

Antonucci TC. Social relations: An examination of social net-works, social support, and sense of control. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW, editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. 5th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2001. P. 427‒53.

Paugam S, Russell H. The effects of employment precarity and unemployment on social isolation. InI Gallie D, Paugam S, edi-tors. Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. P. 243‒65.

Böhnke P. Are the poor socially integrated? The link between poverty and social support in different welfare regimes. J Eur Soc Policy 2008; 18(2): 133‒50.

Spoth R, Redmond C. Effective recruitment of parents into fam¬ily-focused prevention research: a comparison of two strate¬gies. Psychology Health 1994; 9(5): 353–70.

Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidi-men¬sional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess 1998; 52: 30‒41.

Pituch KA, Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the so-cial sciences: analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2016: p. 345.

Tomori C, Go VF, Tuan le N, Huong NM, Binh NT, Zelaya CE, et al. In their perception we are addicts: social vulnerabilities and sources of support for men released from drug treatment centers in Vietnam. Int J Drug Policy 2014; 25(5): 897‒904.

Zhou K, Li H, Wei X, Li X, Zhuang G. Relationships between perceived social support and retention patients receiving methadone maintenance treatment in mainland China. Psy-chol Health Med 2017; 22(4): 493‒500.

Teoh Bing Fei J, Yee A, Habil M.H. Psychiatric comorbidity among patients on methadone maintenance therapy and its in-fluence on quality of life. Am J Addict 2016; 25(1): 49‒55. .

De Maeyer J, Vanderplasschen W, Camfield L, Vanheule S, Sabbe B, Broekaert E. A good quality of life under the influence of methadone: a qualitative study among opiate-dependent indi-viduals. Int J Nurs Stud 2011; 48(10): 1244‒57.

Yen CN, Wang CSM, Wang TY, Chen HF, Chang HC. Quality of life and its correlates among heroin users in Taiwan. Kaohsi¬ung J Med Sci 2011; 27(5): 177‒83.

Chen JP, Wang H, Liu L. Quality of life and related social sup-port for men who have sex with men among university stu-dents in Chongqing, China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2013; 34(9): 888‒92. (Chinese)

Shahzad S, Begum N, Malik S. Multi-dimensional perceived so-cial support as determinant of wellbeing in people with sub-stance use disorder. Int J Prev and Treat Subst Use Disord 2014; 1(2): 63‒70.