The aim of this Master’s Thesis is to find out whether bibliotherapy, in an unspokenform, is practiced in already existing group formations to be able to determine how practicalbibliotherapy can be seen in a Swedish context and thereby open the possibility for development.To fulfil this purpose I decided to do a case study on a nearby book reading circle for adultchildren of drug addicts. I made three qualitative interviews; two of the mentioned book readingcircle’s leaders and one participant/help leader. I used the following set of questions: What isincluded in the concept Bibliotherapy and how does that relate to practice? How has the bookreading circle examined in this case study proceeded, which methods were used and what kind ofliterature has been used and also what kind of effects did this reading circle have on itsparticipants. Can the library/librarian interact in any way in this type of external book readingcircles? I also studied theoretical work on bibliotherapy, as well as various theories on supportgroups and book reading circles, of which I presented a selection of in this thesis. Thistheoretical framework was the basis for my analysis of the result, which showed that theintention of the book reading circle had been consistent with its implementation; the methodsused were in line with the ones of the support groups’ standards and the literature they used wasnonfiction with a content directed especially towards the group’s main problem; the effects thebook reading activities had on the group participants were in line with how developmentalbibliotherapy is described being performed in a Swedish context , and finally; the informants’attitudes towards collaborating with a library/librarian were mainly positive. Thereby, all myquestions were answered and my conclusion is that this case study represents a number of othersupport groups/book reading circles and there would be a mutual benefit if a future collaborationwith the library was established.

Det beräknas att ca 36 % av Sveriges befolkning påverkas negativt av någon i deras närhet som antingen dricker för mycket alkohol eller brukar narkotika (Sundin & Landberg et al., 2018). De närmaste anhöriga, det vill säga familjen, är de som lider mest av deras anhörigas missbruk/beroende/substansbruk. Anhöriga till personer med substansbruk utsätts för mycket stress på grund av oro och negativa konsekvenser (Woititz, 1995). Det finns många olika stödgrupper och olika typer av behandlingar för personer med substansbruk och för dess anhöriga. CRAFT är en metod som socialstyrelsen rekommenderar i arbetet med anhöriga (Socialstyrelsen, 2019). Min egen upplevelse har varit att mitt eget sätt att arbeta, jag kallar det för behandlingsmodellen, med anhöriga har varit mer verksamt än CRAFT. Jag ställde mig därför frågande till vad skillnaden är mellan CRAFT och Behandlingsmodellen samt vilka komponenter (moment/inslag i grupp sessionerna) som kan anses som verksamma i behandling av anhöriga. För att få svar på detta utförde jag en kvalitativ undersökning av fyra olika anhöriggrupper/föräldragrupper. I två av anhöriggrupperna använde jag och min kollega CRAFT och i de andra två grupperna Behandlingsmodell. Gruppdeltagarna var föräldrar vars barn har eller har haft någon form av substansbruk.  Tidigare forskning gällande anhörigstöd samt affektteori och inlärningsteori har hjälpt mig att hitta mönster och förstärka resultatet av insamlat material. I jämförelse med CRAFT gav Behandlingsmodellen bättre resultat i samtliga undersökta områden. Exempelvis visade det sig att 86 % av de anhöriga i behandlingsmodell-grupperna upplevde stor påverkan i sitt psykiska mående i jämförelse med CRAFT-grupperna där 55 % av anhöriga upplevde stor påverkan av deras psykiska mående. I avseende hur deras ungdomar/barn har påverkas till det bättre i relation till missbruk/beroende upplevde 72 % av de anhöriga i behandlingsmodell-grupperna en stor påverkan medan 37 % av anhöriga i CRAFT-grupperna upplevde stor påverkan på deras barn i relation till missbruk/beroende. Deltagarna i de grupper där vi använde Behandlingsmodellen var också generellt mer nöjda med aspekter så som övriga gruppdeltagare, behandlingens innehåll och gruppledarna. Studien belyste betydelsen av faktorer så som gruppens betydelse, kunskap om medberoende, öva på kommunikationsfärdigheter, föräldrafärdigheter, aktivt lyssna, bygga upp en positiv relation och prioritera gemensamt umgänge med ungdomen. Dessa faktorer genomsyrade grupperna i båda behandlingsformerna medan det i Behandlingsmodellen fanns större utrymme för ytterligare faktorer så som vägledning i känslor, den anhörigas vardagliga upplevelser samt att låta individers behov styra behandlingsinnehåll. / It is estimated that about 36 % of Sweden's population is negatively affected by someone close to them who either drinks too much alcohol or uses narcotics (Sundin & Landberg et al., 2018). The closest relatives, the family, are those who suffers the most from their relative’s substance abuse. Relatives of people with substance abuse are exposed to a lot of stress due to anxiety and negative consequences that often arise (Woititz, 1995). There are many different support groups and different types of treatments for people with substance abuse and for their relatives. CRAFT is a method that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare recommends as treatment of relatives (Socialstyrelsen, 2019). Through my own experience I have found that my own way of working with relatives, I call it the Treatment Model, has been more effective than CRAFT. I therefore asked myself what is the difference between CRAFT and the Treatment Model and which components can be considered effective in the treatment of relatives. To get an answer to this, I have done a qualitative survey of four different Support Groups/Parent Groups. In two of the support groups, my colleague and I used CRAFT and in the other two groups, the Treatment Model. The group participants were parents whose children have or had some form of substance use. Previous research on support/treatment of relatives as well as theory’s such as the Affect Theory and Learning Theory has helped me find patterns and reinforce the results of collected material from this study. In comparison with CRAFT, the Treatment Model gave better results in all areas studied. For example, it turned out that 86 % of the relatives in the Treatment Groups experienced a great effect in their mental state in comparison with the CRAFT Groups where 55 % of the relatives experienced a great effect in their mental state. In regards to how their children have been affected for the better in relation to addiction/dependence, 72 % of the relatives in the Treatment Groups experienced a large impact while  37 % of relatives in the CRAFT Groups experienced a large impact on their children in relation to abuse/addiction. The participants in the groups where we used the Treatment Model were also generally more satisfied with aspects such as other group participants, the content of the treatment and the group leaders. The study highlighted the importance of factors such as the group's importance, knowledge of co-dependency, practicing communication skills, parenting skills, actively listening, building a positive relationship and prioritizing joint interaction with the youth. These factors permeated the groups in both forms of treatment, while in the Treatment Model there was more room for additional factors such as guidance in emotions, the relative's everyday experiences and to let individuals' needs control treatment content.