CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Front. Public Health

Sec. Substance Use Disorders and Behavioral Addictions

Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1529078

This article is part of the Research TopicInnovations in Recovery Science: Pathways, Policies, and Platforms that Promote Thriving After AddictionView all 15 articles

Systematizing Peer Recovery Support Services for Substance Use Disorder: A Taxonomy for Measuring Recovery Milestones

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
  • 2University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, United States
  • 3East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, United States
  • 4School of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, United States
  • 5Recovery Research Institute (RRI), Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • 6Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 7Prevention Science Institute, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States
  • 8The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States
  • 9Lighthouse Institute, Chicago, IL, United States
  • 10Partnership to End Addiction, New York, NY, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Recovery from substance use disorder (SUD) is a complex and individualized process requiring multifaceted support systems. Peer recovery support services (PRSS), provided by Peer Workers, bridge the gap between formal intervention and personal recovery experiences. Drawing on shared lived experience, Peer Workers offer essential support to fellow Peers navigating recovery.However, variability in PRSS roles, training, and settings creates challenges for consistent evaluation and measurement of effectiveness.Objective: Introduce a systematic taxonomy to clarify the roles, functions, and activities within PRSS, providing a structured framework for evaluating their impact on key SUD recovery milestones.The taxonomy was developed through a rapid narrative literature review, expert consultation, and an iterative consensus process informed by a Delphi-like approach. A multidisciplinary task group of PRSS scientists and practitioners, SUD treatment providers, and individuals in recovery contributed to its refinement. The framework aligns with key components from SAMHSA's national standards (SAMHSA, 2023) to enhance consistency across practice settings.Comprising six primary taxons and 20 branches, the taxonomy organizes PRSS components into structured categories. It classifies variations in lived experience (e.g., direct, indirect, and hybrid), training levels (e.g., basic, specialized, continuous education, and formal education), support approaches (e.g., Peer Worker-led services), and support settings (e.g., community-based, clinical, and justice system). Additionally, it categorizes peer support activities into four core domains: emotional, informational, instrumental, and affiliational support. The taxonomy integrates a structured model for PRSS evaluation, identifying mediators (e.g., support approaches) and moderators(e.g., training levels) that influence recovery outcomes. PAGE \* Arabic \* MERGEFORMAT 3The proposed taxonomy and integrated evaluation model provide a standardized framework for researchers and practitioners to systematically assess PRSS impact on recovery milestones. By establishing a common language, the taxonomy enhances consistency in PRSS research, identifies empirically supported peer support practices, and informs targeted training and strategic implementation. Future research should prioritize empirical testing of this framework to refine its applicability across diverse PRSS settings and enhance intervention effectiveness and scalability.

Keywords: substance use, peers, Recovery support services, peer recovery support specialists, Taxonomy

Received: 15 Nov 2024; Accepted: 14 Apr 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Horn, Flinn, Hagaman, Zajac, Hoffman, Poulsen, Cioffi, Jean-Berluche, Spana, Hibbard, Drazdowski and Hogue. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Kimberly Horn, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, 24061, Virginia, United States

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.