1. 1
Social Capital, Social Networks, and Substance Use: A Literature Review on the
Use of Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Networks in Drug Treatment Services to
Prevent Relapse Among Young People and Adults
Lund University MPH - Global Public Health
September 2016

2. 2
Introduction
Drug use is a major global health issue. In 2013, it was determined that about 246 mil-
lion people had used an illicit drug and about 27 million people were dependent on drugs (UN-
ODC, 2015). Drug use can be defined as the “harmful or hazardous use of psychoactive sub-
stances, including alcohol and illicit drugs” (WHO, 2016). Whereas drug dependence can be de-
scribed as “a cluster of behavioral, cognitive, and physiological phenomena that develop after
repeated substance use” resulting in a desire to continue using a drug (WHO, 2016). The use of
illicit substances has an incredible impact on the health of an individual and society. Drug use is
one of the top health risk factors worldwide and is associated with other diseases like hepatitis
and HIV (UNODC, 2015). Drug dependent individuals also contribute annually to the growing
cost of health care with costs twice as much as patients without drug dependence (UNODC,
2015). It was also reported that “1 out of 10 people aged 15 to 64 years old are considered prob-
lem drug users” worldwide (UNODC, 2015). Thus, drug use is not just an individual problem but
an issue of local, national, and international proportions.
While drug dependence is widely known as a preventable problem it is not as widely un-
derstood to be a chronic condition. The United States reported that of its problem drug users who
sought intervention treatment services 40% to 60% of individuals relapsed (NIDA, 2012). This
large number of relapsing individuals demonstrates the need for comprehensive evidence-based
intervention programs that utilize a multi-disciplinary approach to treat chronic drug dependence.
Current intervention programs typically include pharmacological and psychosocial interventions
(EMCDDA, 2016). Psychosocial interventions “identify the problem [of drug dependence], treat
it, and assist with social reintegration” (EMCDDA, 2016). These interventions are adjustable in
their approach, utilize different theoretical methods, and have been shown to help the recovery
process (EMCDDA, 2016).
However, the theory of social capital is yet to be widely applied to these psychosocial
interventions. Social capital examines “the institutions, the relationships, the attitudes and values
that govern interactions among people and contribute to economic and social
development” (Grootaert & van Bastelar, 2001). In more basic terms, it is a resource gained

3. 3
through different social networks which can be broken down into three forms (Ferlander, 2007).
First, bonding networks consist of a homogenous group of close family and friends, i.e., parents
or siblings (Ferlander, 2007). Second, bridging networks consist of a heterogeneous group of
friends or associates, i.e, peers from school or work (Ferlander, 2007). Third, linking networks
consist of “colleagues with different hierarchal positions,” i.e, employers or teachers (Ferlander,
2007). There is also positive social capital, i.e, a supportive community network, or negative so-
cial capital, i.e., a network of problem drug users.
By taking a closer look at the specific forms of social networks: bonding, bridging, and
linking networks; it could be possible to improve gaps in intervention services and better prevent
relapse among users. This study aims to summarize recent research in the field in order to high-
light ways young people and adults can build positive social capital during drug treatment by
creating positive social networks to prevent relapse.
Methods
A descriptive literature review was conducted to identify current trends in drug use,
treatment, and recovery. The search for scientific articles was done mainly through the LUB-
Search database, access was provided through Lund University. Scientific articles were included
in the literature review if they were published within the last six years, were peer-reviewed, and
written in English. Articles were also included depending on whether participants were young
people or adults, current drug users, in treatment, or former drug users in recovery. Additionally,
they were included if the article examined the role of social capital (positive and or negative) and
social networks on drug use.
The initial set of key words included in the search process were, social capital AND drug
abuse; four articles were selected from the results. A second set of key words used were, social
capital AND drug use AND young people; of the resulting articles two were chosen for rele-
vance. The third set of key words included, personal networks AND drug abuse; two of the re-
sulting articles were chosen. Eight articles were chosen for this review process by use of the
aforementioned key words which identified articles that were then scanned for relevance via title
and abstract.

4. 4
Additional information used to provide background on the issue of drug abuse, treatment,
and relapse prevention was extracted from the WHO, EMCDDA, the NIDA, The World Bank,
and the UNODC.
Results
The Impact of Social Capital on Drug User Status
Social capital influenced whether a young person used and/or abused alcohol or drugs
(Green, Mitchell, & Bruun, 2013; Mawson et al., 2015; Unlu & Sahin, 2015). Unlu and Sahin
identified five mediating factors - age, gender, ethnicity, income, and residential mobility - which
all impacted a young person’s social capital and substance use preferences (2015). Poverty was
the main barrier in acquiring positive social capital among problem drug users of lower socioe-
conomic status (Boeri et al., 2015; Unlu & Sahin, 2015). High social capital was associated with
a higher environmental quality of life, which included access to safe accommodation and envi-
ronment, income, transportation, and leisure activities (Mawson et al., 2015). Personal networks
associated with peer influence, family attachment, and participation in organized activities also
impacted social capital either in positive or negative ways, thus impacting the substance use of
young people (Unlu & Sahin, 2015). Overall, poor family circumstances and negative peer influ-
ences decreased the amount of social resources and opportunities for social interaction which led
to decreased social capital and an increase in substance use (Green, Mitchell, & Bruun, 2013;
Unlu & Sahin, 2015).
Best et al. found that participants in recovery had larger social networks with more peers
in recovery than active users when compared to participants that were in treatment (2015). This
social network make up was also related to the recovery groups reports of higher social capital
(Best et al, 2015). By examining further the make-up of networks it was established that associ-
ating more with a non-drug using network created higher rates of wellbeing among participants
(Mawson et al., 2015). Identifying with a particular network and the importance of that social
network were closely related to one another and influenced an increase in social capital (Mawson
et al., 2015). Individuals that continued relationships with active drug users and the connections
that maintained their own active drug use habits had higher negative social capital compared to

5. 5
their recovering counterparts (Flores et al., 2013). Overall, higher rates of substance use were
associated with lower social capital (Mawson et al., 2015). Former users had “restablished posi-
tive social capital relationships […] of family relations, employment, sobriety, and new sober
networks” and were possibly using these new networks to maintain drug abstinence (Flores et al.,
2013).
The Impact of Social Networks on Drug User Status
Strong supportive personal and social networks that contain abstinent or non-active drug
users were associated with a lower use of alcohol or drugs, higher likelihood of drug abstinence,
and maintenance after recovery (Best et al., 2015; Boeri et al., 2015; Chung et al., 2014; Flores et
al, 2013; Green, Mitchell, & Bruun, 2013; Mawson et al., 2015; Panebianco et al., 2015; Unlu &
Sahin, 2015). Most social network groups were made up of categories which include: family,
friends, drug treatment programs, community, and leisure activities (Boeri et al, 2015).
Bonded relationships included family and peer networks (Green, Mitchell, & Bruun,
2013). As young people aged, influences from personal networks changed (Unlu & Sahin,
2015). Until age 15, family attachment and peer influence played a large role in whether or not a
young person used alcohol or drugs (Unlu & Sahin, 2015). After age 16, this changed as more
people within the personal network were perceived to use substances, less intra-familial interac-
tions occurred, and young people participated less in activities (Unlu & Sahin, 2015). As family
attachment decreased and peer influence increased, substance use also increased among young
people (Unlu & Sahin, 2015). Family attachment was related to household members and the ties
among members; more members and stronger ties were associated with lower alcohol problem
severity (Chung et al., 2014). In terms of treatment, participants yearned to re-establish, contin-
ue, and improve family relationships with an emphasis on a need for structure, boundaries, and
support (Green, Mitchell, & Bruun, 2013). Family support was an essential part of the bonding
network used in maintaining drug recovery but when it was the sole social network of the partic-
ipants they were more likely to relapse (Panebianco et al., 2015). Individuals who were drug free
former users were found to have larger support networks that consisted of both family and com-
munity domains (Panebianco et al., 2015).

6. 6
It was equally important to examine peer bonding networks in terms of substance use
(Best et al., 2015; Boeri et al., 2015; Chung et al., 2014; Flores et al, 2013; Green, Mitchell, &
Bruun, 2013; Mawson et al., 2015; Panebianco et al., 2015; Unlu & Sahin, 2015). Peer influ-
ences had a higher impact on males in regards to substance use when compared to women of the
same age (Unlu & Sahin, 2015). Results also indicated that “friends provided access to social
capital through new social networks [although] these were typically within the same drug-using
community” (Boeri et al., 2015). The greater number of peers who abstained from drug use with-
in a social network was associated with lower alcohol and marijuana problem usage (Boeri et al.,
2015; Chung et al., 2014). Individuals were many times able to both recognize negative influ-
ences within their social network and a need to break away from these networks but found it dif-
ficult to do so (Green, Mitchell, & Bruun, 2013).
Bonding networks were found amongst current drug users, drug users in treatment, and
former drug users where as bridging and linking networks were almost non-existent (Boeri, et
al., 2015). Young adults in recovery experienced difficulties in “psychological health, physical
health, relationships, and daily living conditions compared to same aged peers” which created a
barrier to social connectedness (Mawson et al., 2015). Recovery and treatment programs provid-
ed bonding and some bridging networks but did not create social opportunities for peer interac-
tion outside of recovery groups (Boeri, et al., 2015).
Discussion and Conclusion
Findings from this literature review demonstrated the link that exists between social capi-
tal, social networks, and substance use. This link can now be used to provide recommendations
for the future when looking to improve treatment programs and fill gaps in relapse prevention.
Currently, pharmacological and psychosocial interventions are the standards of treatment
for drug use disorders (EMCDDA, 2016). Often times providers focus on drug use as an individ-
ual pathological problem, or the physiological effects those drugs have had on the client (Cloud
& Granfield, 2008). However, a young person’s drug use has been shown to be impacted by in-
fluencing factors such as: age, gender, ethnicity, income, mobility and social capital (Flores et al,

7. 7
2013; Unlu & Sahin, 2015). Often times, clients in treatment achieve the ability to abstain from
drug use due to the institutional environment, but fail to have the same results in a natural setting
(White, 2009). Many times, this is due to the fact that during treatment these influencing factors
become less evident. To maintain recovery after treatment these factors need to be addressed by
the provider. This is what makes building social capital in terms of long-term recovery mainte-
nance more effective than individual, repeated treatment episodes (White, 2009).
So instead of “focusing on a dependent person’s [drug] use independent of the social
context that surrounds [them],” treatment would be more successful if it considered opportunities
for clients to build actual social capital (Granfield & Cloud, 2001). Supportive social networks
are important in building positive social capital both during and after treatment. It is essential
that treatment programs develop ways for which young adults can “review and reflect on the im-
portance of heavy-using and non-using [individuals] and to increase engagement with non-using
[individuals] in their social networks” (Mawson et al., 2015). By reviewing their network struc-
ture and ties to using and non-using family and friends, individuals can recognize negative peer
influences and make changes to their personal network for positive outcomes after treatment. It
is also important to remember that not every individual will be able to break ties with negative
influences in their social network. Providers should also look to provide skills to manage these
types of relationships. This can be done by limiting time and type of contact with these specific
individuals (Brown et. al, 2015). Currently, family counseling is not as widely used young people
and adult populations in terms of treatment. This could perhaps be due to the nature of drug use
and the stress it places on interpersonal relationships. However, “practitioners might seek to
build the capacity of families and bonded social networks to provide effective mutual support
and to make changes together” when looking to build supportive social networks for individuals
in drug treatment programs (Green, Mitchell, & Bruun, 2013).
Intervention efforts should also be focused on improving the individuals environmental
quality of life after treatment and must take “the role of environment safety, opportunity for
leisure, and access to [ongoing] services” into account in order to prevent relapse (Laudet &
White, 2008). This can be done by addressing the lack of bridging networks during treatment and
by offering “accommodation support, linkage to employment and training opportunities, and

8. 8
providing opportunities for leisure activities that are congruent with recovery goals” (Mawson et
al., 2015). Opportunities like those mentioned offer integration into an individuals’ community
through a variety of social groups, thus creating bridging and linking networks. Both types of
networks help to control “deviancy and reinforce positive health norms” which could promote
relapse prevention post-treatment (Ferlander, 2007). By providing transportation to religious or
spiritual organizations, social clubs, and sports teams, treatment facilities could also create
bridges between non-drug using and recovering social groups. These bridging relationships
would provide opportunities for recovering users to make changes in their social networks with-
out leaving them isolated. Linking networking opportunities could be achieved during treatment
by providing and encouraging workplace and educational opportunities (Boeri et al., 2015).
Linking networks are essential to improving socioeconomic status within society, which is asso-
ciated with more social resources and a reduced chance of relapse (Cloud & Granfield, 2008).
Self-help and recovery groups are a foundational aspect to many drug treatment programs
today (EMCDDA, 2016). They have been shown to foster social connection via social support,
motivation, and inspiration among group members and help to create positive social capital
(Laudet & White, 2008). However, when recovery groups are the primary form of social net-
works individuals have “little incentive to engage in social networks outside recovery
groups” (Boeri et al., 2015). Thus creating a barrier to building bridging and linking networks
with non-using peers. Again, this is why during treatment, activities and opportunities for social
interaction need to be expanded beyond recovery groups so new social networks can be built to
foster more positive social capital.
Limitations
Some of the studies used in this literature review had small numbers of participants due
to their qualitative nature which makes it difficult to generalize the results to overall populations.
Participants in these studies were also users of various and sometimes multiple illicit drugs mak-
ing it difficult to generalize to a specific drug using population. The small number and specific
nature of which the rehabilitation centers where chosen for each study also makes the data less
representative of the whole area and country in which the studies were done. Each study re-

9. 9
viewed also took place in different higher income counties. This makes it challenging to apply
the findings to lower and middle income countries due to other influencing factors on substance
use in those settings.
Conclusion
Social capital, social networks, and their utilization during drug rehabilitation treatment
should be researched on a larger scale in order to provide more significant and generalizable in-
formation. However, based on the findings of this literature review current drug treatment pro-
grams should begin to implement ways for clients to evaluate and make changes to their personal
networks. As well as, create opportunities to form new social networks via positive bonding,
bridging, and linking relationships, within their societies. By creating these positive social net-
works individuals in treatment would be able to acquire more positive social capital lifting their
status in society and helping them maintain recovery post-treatment. Doing so could potentially
reduce the estimated 40% to 60% of drug users that relapse after treatment (NIDA, 2012).

10. 10
References
Best, D., McKitterick, T., Beswick, T. and Savic, M. (2015) ‘Recovery capital and social net
works among people in treatment and among those in recovery in York, England’,
Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 33(3), pp. 270–282. doi:
10.1080/07347324.2015.1050931.
Boeri, M., Gardner, M., Gerken, E., Ross, M. and Wheeler, J. (2016) ‘“I don’t know what fun
is”: Examining the intersection of social capital, social networks, and social recovery’,
Drugs and Alcohol Today, 16(1), pp. 95–105. doi: 10.1108/dat-08-2015-0046.
Brown, S., Tracy, E.M., Jun, M., Park, H. and Min, M.O. (2014) ‘Personal network recovery En
ablers and relapse risks for women with substance dependence’, 25(3).
Cloud, W. and Granfield, R. (2008) ‘Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical
construct’, Substance Use & Misuse, 43(12-13), pp. 1971–1986
Chung, T., Sealy, L., Abraham, M., Ruglovsky, C., Schall, J. and Maisto, S.A. (2014) ‘Personal
network characteristics of youth in substance use treatment: Motivation for and perceived
difficulty of positive network change’, Substance Abuse, 36(3), pp. 380–388. doi:
10.1080/08897077.2014.932319.
EMCDDA (2016) The role of psychosocial interventions in drug treatment (perspectives on
drugs). Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topics/pods/psychoso
cial-interventions (Accessed: 22 September 2016).
Ferlander, S. (2007) ‘The importance of different forms of social capital for health’, Acta Socio
logica, 50(2), pp. 115–128. doi: 10.1177/0001699307077654.
Flores, D.V., Torres, L.R., Torres-Vigil, I., Ren, Y., Haider, A. and Bordnick, P.S. (2013) ‘“El
Lado Oscuro”: “The dark Side” of social capital in Mexican American heroin using men’,
Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 12(2), pp. 124–139. doi:
10.1080/15332640.2013.788897.
Granfield, R. and Cloud, W. (2001) ‘SOCIAL CONTEXT AND “NATURAL RECOVERY”:
THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE RESOLUTION OF DRUG-ASSOCIATED
PROBLEMS’, Substance Use & Misuse, 36(11), pp. 1543–1570.

11. 11
Green, R., Mitchell, P. and Bruun, A. (2013) ‘Bonds and bridges: Perspectives of service-
engaged young people on the value of relationships in addressing alcohol and other drug
issues’, Journal of Youth Studies, 16(4), pp. 421–440. doi:
10.1080/13676261.2012.718433.
Grootaert, C. and van Bastelar, T. (2001) UNDERSTANDING AND MEASURING SOCIAL CAP
ITAL: A SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SOCIAL
CAPITAL INITIATIVE. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIAL
CAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-Series/SCI-WPS-24.pdf
Laudet, A.B. and White, W.L. (2008) ‘Recovery capital as prospective predictor of sustained re
covery, life satisfaction, and stress among former Poly-Substance users’, Substance Use
& Misuse, 43(1), pp. 27–54.
Mawson, E., Best, D., Beckwith, M., Dingle, G.A. and Lubman, D.I. (2015) ‘Social identity, so
cial networks and recovery capital in emerging adulthood: A pilot study’, Substance
Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 10(1). doi: 10.1186/s13011-015-0041-2
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (2012) How effective is drug addiction treatment?
Available at: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treat
ment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/how-effective-drug-
addiction-treatment (Accessed: 22 September 2016).
Panebianco, D., Gallupe, O., Carrington, P.J. and Colozzi, I. (2016) ‘Personal support networks,
social capital, and risk of relapse among individuals treated for substance use issues’,
International Journal of Drug Policy, 27, pp. 146–153. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.
2015.09.009.
Unlu, A. and Sahin, I. (2015) ‘The impact of mediating factors on youth social capital and sub
stance use’, International Journal of Public Policy, 11(1/2/3), p. 110. doi: 10.1504/ijpp.
2015.068848.
UNODC (2015) World Drug Report. Available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr2015/
World_Drug_Report_2015.pdf (Accessed: 22 September 2016).
White, W.L. (2009) ‘The mobilization of community resources to support long-term addiction
recovery’, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(2), pp. 146–158.
WHO (2016) Management of substance abuse. Available at: http://www.who.int/sub
stance_abuse/en/ (Accessed: 22 September 2016).