Introduction

On March 11, 2020, COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (CDC, 2023a). Early impacts in the USA included GDP shrinking by 8.9% (The White House, n.d.) and the unemployment rate tripling in 2020 (Smith et al., 2021). The pandemic has now been associated with over 1.1 million deaths (CDC, 2024). Furthermore, the burden of COVID-19 has not been distributed equally within society, instead impacting some groups more than others and thereby exacerbating social inequalities (Stok et al., 2021). For instance, COVID-19 and the measures established to limit its spread were associated with adverse outcomes for individuals using substances because of constraints on substance use services. While the demand for services addressing substance misuse increased during the pandemic, the availability of such services decreased (Melamed et al., 2022). People seeking help often experienced admission delays and reduction of services once in treatment (Baloh et al., 2023; Hubach et al., 2021; Pagano et al., 2021).

COVID-19 and Substance Use Disorder Recovery

Research also highlighted the challenges of people in recovery during the pandemic. When the COVID-19 pandemic inundated the USA, the country had already been experiencing decades of the opioid crisis (CDC, 2023b), leading to a collision of epidemics (Volkow, 2020). After overdose deaths finally plateaued before the onset of the coronavirus, overdose deaths spiked during the first two years of the virus (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 2023). Currently, an estimated 20.9 million Americans identify as living in recovery (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2023). The coronavirus pandemic and the associated mitigation measures had implications for those recovering from a substance use disorder (SUD).

Being in recovery during the early months of the pandemic was associated with a unique set of challenges. Recovery includes applying principles such as social connection, present focus, hope, flexibility, personal responsibility, acceptance, resilience, and recovery as an ongoing process (DeLucia et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2020; Nugent, 2012). Social connection appears to have been particularly challenging to achieve early in the pandemic. For instance, the measures implemented to limit the spread of the virus also meant diminished access to what is known as recovery capital, which includes social connection with people who are supportive of one’s recovery (Hurley et al., 2021). Individuals in recovery experienced unique adversity in their attempts to ameliorate their substance misuse, e.g., a move from in-person to virtual support meetings, reduced access to treatment, and a decreased feeling of belonging (Gleason et al., 2022; Shircliff et al., 2022). Experiences of cravings were common and were stronger for those experiencing more loneliness and shorter periods of sobriety (Bonny-Noach & Gold, 2021). However, individuals also developed new ways to cope with the pandemic-related stressors, for example, by engaging in self-care or hobbies or deepening existing relationships (Shircliff et al., 2022). For some, online mutual help organization (e.g., 12-step) meetings were a viable way to maintain support (Bergman et al., 2021). However, frontline professionals highlighted that the pandemic-induced loss of human connection was a challenge for individuals to begin and maintain their recovery journey (Anvari et al., 2021).

COVID-19 and College Students

College students faced specific challenges as a result of the pandemic and the measures put in place to ameliorate it. The early lockdowns were associated with concerns about physical well-being, loneliness, and lack of motivation. They were also associated with financial impacts due to employment changes and academic impacts because of a move from in-person to virtual learning environments (Birmingham et al., 2023; Son et al., 2020; Tümen Akyıldız, 2020). More specifically, the pandemic adversely affected numerous areas of mental health functioning such as excessive worrying, sleep disturbances, or trouble concentrating (Son et al., 2020). Findings from a large sample (N = 2031) of college students at a southwestern US university revealed that close to 50% and 39% showed moderate-to-severe levels of depression or anxiety, respectively, and almost one in five had suicidal ideation (Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, another study including students across the USA (N = 212) showed that a decrease in self-reported quality of life was seen in almost three out of four students, and more than one in four increased their alcohol consumption (Firkey et al., 2022). Other work found that mental distress was also associated with substance misuse, as college students with severe mental health symptoms were at greater risk for meeting alcohol use disorder criteria and for alcohol-related consequences (Hurlocker et al., 2022; Sheerin et al., 2022). While some studies have revealed decreased substance use among college students during the pandemic due to changing environments (White et al., 2020), it appears that particularly those with increased mental health symptomatology were at risk for an increase in substance use during COVID-19 (Bountress et al., 2022).

COVID-19 and College Students in Recovery

While studies have examined the experiences of people in recovery or of college students during the pandemic, there is little knowledge of how people who are both college students and in recovery experienced the pandemic. It is estimated that 2.5% of undergraduate college students identify as being in recovery (American College Health Association, 2023). With 15.4 million undergraduate students enrolled nationwide (Education Data Initiative, 2024), this is 385,000 people in raw numbers. Over the last several years, the number of collegiate recovery programs (CRP), which offer campus-based peer support, has increased steadily (Laudet et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2023). However, at the time of this writing, there are only 176 CRPs (Association of Recovery in Higher Education, 2024) among the 3931 higher education institutions in the USA (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Few studies have focused on students in recovery without access to a CRP (e.g., Kollath-Cattano et al., 2018), and to our knowledge, this is the first to specifically explore these students’ resilience in the context of COVID-19. A recent study including 334 students across 43 CRPs revealed pandemic-specific challenges such as reduced recovery meeting access, and three out of four reported that their mental health functioning worsened (Smith et al., 2023). Those without access to a CRP may have faced even greater adversity from the pandemic due to the lack of preexisting campus-based support. To address these gaps, this study explores how college students in recovery on a campus without a CRP experienced adversity and demonstrated resilience in the context of the pandemic. Researchers have called for further evaluation of how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted people across the continuum of substance use services (Baloh et al., 2023), and we believe this study is an important contribution to that broader line of inquiry.

Methods

This study utilized Braun and Clarke’s (2023) approach to reflexive thematic analysis, which helps with seeing, analyzing, and recording data patterns. Data are analyzed inductively, such that codes are generated from participants’ statements rather than from a preset coding frame. Reflexive thematic analysis fits with the social constructivist perspective (Braun & Clarke, 2023) that acknowledges the subjective meaning of experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Thus, there may not be a universal experience of the pandemic for students in recovery without access to a CRP. The adversity imposed and the strategies to mitigate it may vary greatly between individuals. This study was also informed by the epistemological stance that reality is co-constructed between researcher and participant (Creswell & Poth, 2018) and that participants are the authorities on their lives.

Data Collection

The semi-structured interview protocol was developed by the lead author with input from other study personnel. The research team included people who consider themselves in recovery from substance use issues. The protocol was grounded in the research literature and focused on experiences during the pandemic, along with access to college as a student in recovery, barriers and facilitators to recovery once in college, sense of community, and advice for other students and administrators. Questions specific to pandemic experiences were asked at the conclusion of the barriers and facilitators and sense of community sections. Therefore, it is possible that participants’ answers were influenced by earlier questions. To mitigate the potential for this bias, we sought to explore both challenging and positive experiences participants had during the pandemic. For example, we asked “How has COVID-19 affected your sense of community?” to elicit a range of potential experiences. Consistent with the study’s epistemological stance, we sought to understand participants’ experiences without conveying our assumptions about the issues discussed.

Participants

Participants were undergraduate students at a commuter university in an urban setting without a CRP in the Midwestern United States. During the Winter 2022 semester, when the bulk of the data was collected, enrollment was 22,941 students (15,330 undergraduates). The student population was 59% female, 40% male, and 1% unreported gender; 49% White, 15% Black, 13% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 7% Middle Eastern/North African, and 10% another race or two or more races; and spanned from young adults to students over 65 (Institutional Research & Data Analytics, 2024). Inclusion criteria were (1) current undergraduate enrollment at the university, (2) at least 18 years of age, and (3) self-identifying as in recovery from substance misuse. Focusing on undergraduates at one university allowed us to investigate how people in a similar environment experienced the pandemic. Moreover, there was no upper age limit because students in recovery are often older than traditional undergraduate age (Laudet et al., 2015).

To recruit participants, both Facebook and the university’s online announcement platform were utilized. Additionally, university counseling services staff shared recruitment materials with potential participants during appointments or over email. These recruitment methods were sufficient to gain 14 participants. Later, we invited participants to share study information with other students in recovery they knew. The snowball sampling method resulted in three additional interviews, for a total of 17 participants interviewed. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 44 (M = 28.1, SD = 6.91) and reported from 1.5 months to 8.5 years in recovery (M = 3.80 years, SD = 2.63 years). Participants identified their gender as female (n = 11), male (n = 5), or non-binary (n = 1). They reported their race or ethnicity as Native American and White (n = 1), Hispanic (n = 4), or White (n = 12). Lastly, 11 (64.7%) began recovery before enrolling at the university. To protect participants’ anonymity given the relatively small sample size, gender-neutral pronouns will be used in reporting study results.

Procedure

The semi-structured interviews ranged from 22 to 82 min (M = 44.97, SD = 18.67). Interviews were conducted by the lead author or another member of the research team over Zoom or phone from December 2021 to May 2022. For about six weeks of the recruitment period (December 2021 through February 2022), the university resumed remote operations because of the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. With participants’ permission, interviews were audio-recorded. Students received a $20 Amazon gift card for their participation.

Data Analysis

Interviews were professionally transcribed and then reviewed for accuracy by a member of the research team. Next, interviews were imported into Dedoose (Version 9.0.48). Data analysis proceeded based on Braun and Clarke’s (2023) protocol. First, we read transcripts to gain familiarity with the data and to begin seeing patterns across the data set. Next, we used Dedoose to develop initial codes and apply them to the data. Then, using Microsoft Excel, we collated data by codes, made connections between codes, and compared data across participants. This facilitated the development of higher-level codes that subsumed various initial codes. In turn, higher-level codes were grouped by provisional themes. Next, each provisional theme was scrutinized to assess whether there was sufficient data to support it and how well it answered the research question. After that, data were recoded, and themes were refined until they seemed to fit the experiences participants described.

Strategies for Rigor

Multiple strategies were used to maximize trustworthiness and enhance rigor (Braun & Clarke, 2023; Padgett, 2017). As noted, transcripts were reviewed and compared with audio recordings to ensure accuracy. Through peer debriefing, findings were shared, and interpretations were discussed with other team members. This process helped decrease the chances of personal beliefs having undue influence on the analysis by discussing multiple perspectives on the data. It also helped to ensure that there was adequate data for each theme identified. Finally, an audit trail was developed by writing memos throughout data collection and analysis. This promoted feedback on the coding process and resulting analytical decisions (Padgett, 2017).

Results

A summary of results is available in Table 1. Participants described some challenges that were common for college students during the pandemic, such as shifting to all-virtual learning, and they emphasized difficulties unique to students in recovery. One was attrition from the recovery community, which had a ripple effect on those who remained. Other challenges included loss of connection with recovery-supportive people, temptation to use substances, and mental health challenges that impacted their recovery. Generally, a sense of isolation was intertwined with these other difficulties.

Table 1 Pandemic-related experiences of college students recovering from substance misuse
Full size table

Participants also discussed how they overcame pandemic-related challenges and protected their recovery. Some strategies had broader applications (i.e., for students and other people not in recovery), and some were quite specific to people in recovery. For some who were newer in recovery, the isolation made it easier to avoid substance use. Participants also described applying recovery principles (e.g., acceptance) to the difficult circumstances, finding new resources for their recovery, and strategies to maintain connection with some supports.

Pandemic Disruptions to Recovery

“COVID Hit Us Hard... We Lost a Lot of People”

Participants described how the pandemic impacted the recovery community as a whole. Impacts included recovery routines going awry and people disappearing from the community for various reasons, which placed strain on those who remained. Participants observed that it was harder to keep people newer to recovery engaged. These individuals had started to build a routine that included face-to-face recovery meetings, which were disrupted by pandemic-mandated shutdowns when they were already adjusting to a big life change brought on by entering recovery. Then, these individuals disappeared from the community. P7 described such a scenario:

I had friends who were trying to kick much worse habits that had happened over a lot longer period of time. A friend of mine went to the gym in the morning, went to work, went to a meeting, every day. Like, gym, work, meeting. The first thing that shut down were ... I think for them it was the gym shut down, and then work shut down, and then meetings went virtual. And your routine got completely messed up. It’s harder to keep you around when your routine gets messed up. You’re trying to adjust to that as well as everything else.

P7’s friend entered recovery with a longer and more severe history of substance misuse and had begun to develop a recovery routine. As various places closed, it became challenging for this person to stay engaged, as they had just started to adjust to recovery when the pandemic hit. While shutdowns of workplaces and gyms impacted people outside of recovery, it appears that this individual was particularly vulnerable because they were new in recovery and unable to maintain their routine.

Participants also explained how some people with substantial recovery experience left the community, negatively affecting those who remained. The overall number of people decreased, putting pressure on those who remained to keep meetings functioning. Additionally, these long-time members were seen as having wisdom to offer that was now missing from the groups. Therefore, the members who stayed bore more responsibility to assist newer arrivals to the groups. P13 illustrated these challenges:

And I think what’s really hard in my personal recovery pathway is a lot of people that have been around a really long time so they have a lot of experience, a lot to offer. They stop showing up and they haven’t all come back yet. And so it changes the dynamic in those recovery groups where there’s a lot more responsibility or work or whatever put on a smaller group of people to make sure that these groups are facilitated, open, that when people come in seeking help that there’s people there who can help them.

Thus, P13 observed that many with recovery experience left the community, taking their knowledge with them. In turn, a smaller group of people had to keep the meetings open and be available to assist new attendees.

Loss of Personal Connections

Participants discussed how the pandemic impacted their personal recovery by reducing connection with supports. Those in mutual aid programs reported fewer opportunities to connect with friends from these groups. When meetings suddenly went online, participants lost a crucial informal aspect of their recovery programs—socializing with friends before or after meetings. When they did attend online meetings, they found interpersonal connection lacking, at least initially. To highlight their sense of lost connection, participants used language such as “it feels very impersonal when it’s online,” “the energy exchange isn’t there [on virtual meetings],” “connection was really severed,” and one said “[the pandemic] completely destroyed my recovery network.” Therefore, these participants experienced lost connection in various ways. Some felt less connected with their network in virtual meetings, and others lost contact with their recovery network altogether.

When in-person activities resumed, some participants felt that social connection still lacked. For example, students in mutual aid programs described having fewer interactions with others in the programs than they had prepandemic. This was both because fewer people were present at meetings than before and because some of those who did return hesitated to socialize before or after meetings. Thus, an important part of the recovery process was missing. To this point, P4 explained that “the meeting after the meeting, going out for coffee, or going out to dinner with a group of people, or… That’s not as prominent right now still.” Not only were these pre- or post-meeting gatherings impossible during the shutdowns, but once meetings reopened, these gatherings were less common than before the pandemic, which impacted connectedness. While reduced connection was a universal phenomenon during the pandemic, the importance of social connection to recovery may have rendered this phenomenon especially damaging to these students in recovery.

Struggling with Substance Use and Mental Health

For some participants, stay-at-home orders and the resulting isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic made substance use more tempting. Interestingly, P10 shared that they felt comfortable socializing with friends at the bar earlier in their recovery and abstained from drinking while doing so. When the shutdowns occurred, the removal of their social outlet prompted a return to drinking:

The beginning of COVID was very difficult because although I was actually the most personal then, I was going to the bar a lot because that was one of the few things that I knew how to do and to get away from home and be comfortable in. So when COVID hit and I couldn’t go to the bar anymore, that’s actually when I started drinking again. That was very difficult.

Thus, the bar was one of the few public places where P10 felt comfortable. When they could not go due to pandemic-mandated closures, P10 began to drink again.

Participants also described how the pandemic impacted their mental health. Generally, a pervasive feeling of stress made it difficult to cope and, at times, to attend to responsibilities. The latter could manifest in both recovery activities and schoolwork. As P1 explained, it became easier to simply say “screw it” if they began to fall behind at all. It was also difficult to obtain professional help to address mental health challenges. One participant who had utilized counseling throughout their recovery described how it was hard to find virtual counseling early in the pandemic. Once they did, it felt less effective than in-person counseling. Furthermore, after public spaces reopened, mental health challenges lingered for some. P7 described how pandemic-induced isolation, and the corresponding lack of social interaction, caused them to develop social anxiety. This made it hard for them to participate in face-to-face meetings when they resumed. Therefore, in addition to broader concerns about substance misuse and mental health challenges during the pandemic, these students experienced impacts specific to their recovery journeys.

Overcoming Pandemic-Related Adversity

Using Social Distancing to Avoid Substance Use

Interestingly, some participants newer in recovery found the pandemic conducive to stopping problematic substance use. They did not yet have recovery routines to be disrupted, and social distancing requirements helped them begin recovery. For example, P12 stated that the initial (March 2020) shutdown helped them quit vaping because they were not around others who vaped. Similarly, P9 entered recovery weeks before the pandemic began. They emphasized how the shutdown helped them avoid alcohol use because of less exposure to environments where alcohol was sold:

I think the pandemic also made it a lot easier for me to stay sober because with the initial lockdowns and stuff, my wife and I weren’t going out to the grocery store often, I didn’t have excuses to run to the store for anything. I guess that helped, the initial time of sobriety.

Thus, social distancing requirements helped this participant in their early recovery by limiting opportunities for them to obtain alcohol.

Applying Recovery Principles to a New Normal

Participants also recounted how they applied principles that they learned in recovery to the new normal of life during the pandemic. For example, P2 described the importance of trusting the process, by moving through the changes and believing that they could course-correct if needed. They discussed how there were several unknowns, but trusting that things would work out helped them to cope. Furthermore, participants also reported the benefits of remaining flexible. Certain actions that they used to take for their recovery were no longer feasible in the new environment, but they found new ways to maintain their recovery. For example, P13 shared:

For me to change what has always worked in recovery so it’s great to be flexible and I’m all about learning and changing and being flexible in the process. But there’s a recipe that I have, and I have to be adamant that I don’t compromise that just because the environment changes. Okay, maybe I can’t go in person, but I still have to do these things.

Thus, life during the pandemic required participants to apply recovery principles, such as flexibility, to the new normal. However, flexibility did not mean completely abandoning activities that worked before. Being flexible meant adapting to the new environment in a way that prioritized recovery.

Finding New Recovery Resources

These students in recovery shared about how they found and utilized new resources that helped them maintain their recovery. These included coping strategies that were likely beneficial to the broader population as well, developed in response to the stay-at-home orders, such as exercising at home or going for a drive to clear one’s mind. Another new opportunity was accessing recovery program literature online that was previously only available in print. Finally, several participants discussed how they eventually saw positives of online recovery meetings. Even though some felt that connection was lower in these meetings, they typically engaged out of necessity when the pandemic began. As time passed, they began to build relationships with people worldwide, thanks to the online platform making it possible for anyone to participate. Another benefit was simply being able to log into a meeting from home. P13 summed up both benefits:

I’ll start with the positives is, I think it’s really cool because now I can log onto meetings or connect with people in recovery more easily than ever before all around the world.

So, there were some benefits of virtual meetings, including convenience and getting to know people who were located throughout the world. As such, this novel resource promoted continued recovery.

Maintaining Connection

Participants highlighted how in addition to implementing new resources, they utilized existing tools to the extent possible. They stayed in contact with recovery supports and friends by leveraging opportunities for connection that remained available during the pandemic. These included text messaging or by finding ways to meet with others as allowed, such as in parks or parking lots. These were also suitable locations for in-person recovery meetings when indoor gathering sizes were limited. By texting, meeting with supports outdoors, or finding other ways to interact, such as on various online platforms, participants maintained their recovery. Several made statements that evidenced their determination to do so, such as “I mean, I still kept talking to my sponsor. I kept trying to do everything that I was doing before” (P5). This excerpt highlights the participant’s commitment to maintaining connection to the degree possible and to doing what they knew to be effective for their recovery.

Discussion

This study of undergraduate students in recovery without a collegiate recovery program highlights adversity and resilience in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. While participants discussed some challenges and strategies that were ubiquitous (e.g., less personal connection during shutdowns, mobilizing opportunities to stay in contact with network members), this study demonstrates how these issues specifically impacted a sample of students in recovery. As classes moved to virtual teaching and support meetings moved online, students experienced a sense of isolation and a loss of connection with the recovery community. Some participants shared that some members of their networks stopped attending recovery meetings, thus changing the dynamic of the groups and disrupting their sense of connection. Some found it difficult to reconnect, even after lockdowns were lifted. Consistent with Smith et al.’s (2023) research including students in CRPs, we found that participants experienced worsening mental health during the pandemic. This suggests that pandemic-related mental health challenges manifested among students in recovery whether or not they had preexisting campus-based support services. In some cases, participants were more prone to substance use as their mental health deteriorated. This builds on research showing the link between mental health symptoms and worsened substance use among college students (Hurlocker et al., 2022; Sheerin et al., 2022). Those in recovery longer described greater strain to their networks, perhaps because they had invested considerable time into building those networks prior to the pandemic. Interestingly, there did not appear to be a pattern in which this strain was related to substance use and mental health challenges. Instead, participants who faced these challenges were in various stages of recovery.

This study further adds to the knowledge base by highlighting the resilience of students in recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic. To our knowledge, this is among the first studies to explore how students in recovery without access to a CRP overcame pandemic-induced adversity. While some of our findings are consistent with prior research on mental health and substance use among students during COVID-19 (Hurlocker et al., 2022; Sheerin et al., 2022), this study adds to the literature by highlighting that students reacted to the new normal in a malleable way. Some took advantage of the isolation, using it to help them avoid substance use as stay-at-home mandates kept them away from triggering environments. While we did not systematically collect data related to whether time in recovery differentiated students’ experiences, this strategy seemed particularly effective for participants who were new in recovery and attempting to initiate abstinence around the time the pandemic began. Some participants applied recovery principles such as acceptance or flexibility to their new reality. Others realized that they could not attend in-person meetings, but instead engaged in recovery meetings virtually all around the world, thereby connecting with people they would have never met at a local meeting. While those who established their recovery prior to the pandemic appeared more vulnerable to the loss of recovery network members, they also seemed primed to mobilize this connective strategy due to previous experience in recovery groups. While we did not collect data specifically pertaining to number of meetings attended, this appears to contrast with Smith et al.’s (2023) finding that nearly half of CRP students attended fewer meetings during the pandemic. It may be that students without a CRP were already used to searching for resources to support their recovery in the absence of institutional support, thus making the shift to virtual meetings more palatable. Overall, students’ creative strategies are reflective of their resilience and motivation to remain in recovery despite pandemic-related challenges.

Implications

While few pandemic restrictions remain, there is an ongoing trend toward virtual learning (U. S. Government Accountability Office, 2023). This trend is evident in the finding that in fall 2019, only 36% of college students took any classes online, but by fall 2021, 60% of students took at least one class online (National Center for Education Statistics, (2022). It is thus likely that fewer students will be on campus regularly, so alternative ways for students in recovery to connect with each other will be necessary. It is also feasible that additional disruptive events occur, adding to the importance of implementing responsive programming now (Baloh et al., 2023). Such events could also increase the prevalence of SUD, making it even more crucial to have recovery services available (Baloh et al., 2023). For example, since the initial wave of the pandemic in 2020, COVID cases have spiked and then receded before spiking again, causing uncertainty about the future of the virus. These considerations are also important given our findings that, for some participants, pandemic-related isolation worsened substance use and mental health challenges.

Understanding how the study population overcame crisis-induced adversity can inform programming now and later. Because some participants described the value of virtual recovery meetings, campuses should implement such meetings. Those with a CRP could do so under that program’s purview, while other campuses might “house” these meetings within student wellness, counseling and psychological services, or similar. Campuses should also seek to increase capacity for counseling for students in recovery. This resource could be made available within a CRP or under another umbrella, depending on the campus. Offering counseling in group formats may help to increase sense of connection. Finally, given that several participants benefitted from their involvement in community-based recovery services (e.g., twelve-step meetings), counselors should be supplied with lists of recovery resources located near campus. To further support inclusion and connection, campuses might offer trainings to both students and faculty to reduce stigma related to substance use and recovery. This may be particularly important in the campus environment because it is generally unfriendly to recovery, with relatively high rates of substance use (American College Health Association, 2023) and stigma against students who do not participate (Burns et al., 2024; Kollath-Cattano et al., 2018). For students who are on campus, creating substance-free spaces would be beneficial, as our findings show that avoidance of substance-saturated spaces was conducive to recovery. While CRPs already offer these in their dedicated physical spaces, non-CRP campuses ought to offer regularly scheduled substance-free activities to provide a safe space for students in recovery. Ideally, these activities would be available across weekend nights. Given our findings that some students in recovery enjoyed cultivating supportive relationships across geographic boundaries, campus professionals might implement virtual recovery activities that include students across campuses. These activities could also include students who are primarily or fully engaged in distance learning.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study builds knowledge of how students in recovery without access to a CRP experienced and persevered through the pandemic; at the same time, its limitations should be noted. The sample had limited racial diversity. Fifteen percent of undergraduate students are Black at the university under study (Institutional Research & Data Analytics, 2024), but there were no Black participants. Earlier research on students in recovery documented this as a common void in the literature (Huggins, 2021). Because intersectional identities may exacerbate recovery barriers (Spencer, 2017), additional research including racially diverse students is important to facilitate culturally responsive programming. Also, we did not systematically collect data about students’ substance use before recovery. Future research on non-CRP students in recovery should collect such data, as differences prior to recovery may impact adversity and strategies to overcome it once in recovery. Additionally, the use of one site to recruit participants may limit the transferability of findings to other campuses without CRPs. And, because participants needed to self-identify as being in recovery from substance misuse, there may have been other students striving for improved health and wellness related to substance use, who chose not to participate because they did not identify as being in recovery. Nevertheless, this study offers a valuable contribution to understanding the pandemic-related experiences of students in recovery and illuminates numerous directions for future research.

Future research should continue to explore pandemic-related experiences of students in recovery on campuses with varied demographic profiles and presence or absence of a CRP. Smith et al. (2023) have contributed considerably to the collegiate recovery field’s knowledge of how students in CRPs navigated the pandemic. They also note that factors such as minoritized identities and geographic variability in COVID-19 restrictions could impact findings (Smith et al., 2023). Therefore, future researchers should consider recruiting at minority-serving institutions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities), using snowball sampling to reach more students with minoritized identities, or stratifying samples by geographic region. Moreover, comparisons between campuses with and without CRPs could inform tailored services. While our study illuminates the adversity faced and resilience demonstrated by students on one campus without a CRP, it could very well be that factors noted by Smith et al. (2023) would also differentiate findings on other non-CRP campuses. These directions are important given that virtual learning continues to be popular and there may be additional disruptive events that necessitate reductions in time students spend on campus.

Future researchers should also make comparisons by campus and institution type. The present study took place on a large urban campus that has a high proportion of commuter students. It is possible that campuses with more residential students may be even more vulnerable to disruptive events, because students typically have more built-in opportunities for in-person interaction. These opportunities may include on-campus recovery meetings and activities, thereby worsening the impact on a student’s recovery community during a crisis. Or, campuses with more commuter students may have less connection to begin with, thereby exacerbating loss of connection when disruptive events occur. Finally, experiences may vary between students at two-year colleges and those at four-year colleges. Overall, these comparisons would facilitate services that are tailored to what various campuses need both now and in case of a future disruptive event.

Our findings related to recovery communities and relationships also reveal directions for future research. What have students who participate in recovery communities experienced since the pandemic’s early impact on attrition? Our results suggest that even when physical spaces reopened, meeting attendance was lower, and students felt less connection than prepandemic. Have these trends continued? If so, these students may need campus-based communities to strengthen connection to others in recovery. Conversely, while students’ existing recovery communities were strained during the pandemic, some built new relationships with other people in recovery across geographical boundaries. Have they been able to maintain those relationships, and if so, how are those relationships benefitting their recovery today? These insights could guide programming that is designed to connect students in recovery across campuses.

Conclusion

College students faced multiple forms of adversity during the COVID-19 pandemic and so did people in recovery. In this study, we utilized thematic analysis to explore how college students in recovery without access to a collegiate recovery program experienced adversity and practiced resilience during the pandemic. Such knowledge is largely missing from the literature, and we suggest that it is important to not only bring these students’ experiences to light, but to also help the collegiate recovery field prepare for future crises. For these students, adversity included attrition from the recovery community, disrupted connection to friends and supports, and substance use and mental health challenges related to the pandemic’s isolation. These students demonstrated resilience in various ways, with some turning the isolation to their advantage, by using it to help them avoid substances. Moreover, they applied recovery principles, leveraged new recovery resources, and found ways to maintain important connections in order to persevere through the adversity. Given that virtual learning continues to be popular, our findings can be utilized to develop or improve collegiate recovery services that account for the presence of fewer students on campus. In turn, these services can be prepared for future crises, as the wider recovery movement seeks to be ready for such events.