Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous in treating alcoholism has been extensively studied. Many papers have been published studying how much Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) helps keep alcoholics sober. The subject is controversial with some studies showing AA helping alcoholics, while other studies do not show AA efficacy. The U.S. Surgeon General states in a 2016 report on addiction that "Well-supported scientific evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of twelve-step mutual aid groups focused on alcohol and twelve-step facilitation interventions". The program appears to be helpful for a subset of alcoholics; Alcoholics Anonymous appears to be about as effective as other abstinent-based support groups.

Overview[edit]

Because of the anonymous and voluntary nature of Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") meetings, it is difficult to perform random trials with them; the research suggests that AA can help alcoholics make positive changes.[1] The Surgeon General of the United States 2016 Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health states "Well-supported scientific evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of twelve-step mutual aid groups focused on alcohol and twelve-step facilitation interventions." [2]

The research is quite complex and is still developing;[1] some studies have suggested an association between AA and increased abstinence or other positive outcomes,[3][4][5][6][7] but other studies have not.[8][9] Likewise, some articles in the popular press state that Alcoholics Anonymous helps some alcoholics get sober,[10][11][12][13] but others claim AA is not effective.[14][15]

Many randomized controlled trials, or experimental studies do not show a correlation between being assigned to AA and better treatment outcomes,[16] but some studies show the subjects who were randomly assigned treatment which makes them attend more AA meetings doing better.[17][18][12] Longitudinal studies show a high success rate (i.e. rate of people successfully abstinent from alcohol) for the 25% to 30%[19] who are heavily involved with AA. One study saw that AA adherents have a 67% success rate;[3] another shows a 74.8% success rate among regular AA meeting attenders.[20] Longitudinal studies suffer from self-selection bias,[21][22] but one 2014 meta-study concludes that AA's effectiveness does not entirely come from self-selection.[4]

Alcoholics Anonymous appears to be about as effective as other abstinent-based support groups.[23]

Clinical studies[edit]

Humphreys, Blodgett, and Wagner 2014[edit]

A 2014 meta-analysis of the data from five studies by Keith Humphreys, Janet Blodgett and Todd Wagner concluded that "increasing AA attendance leads to short and long term decreases in alcohol consumption that cannot be attributed to self-selection."[4] Austin Frakt, writing for The New York Times, discusses how the study's methodology minimizes outside factors, such as how motivated the people who succeed at becoming abstinent are. Frakt sums up the results of the research as follows: "Going to an additional two A.A. meetings per week produced at least three more days of alcohol abstinence per month". The article concludes that "A.A. helps alcoholics, apart from the fact that it may attract a more motivated group of individuals. With that established, the next step is to encourage even more to take advantage of its benefits."[11]

Kaskutas 2009[edit]

In 2009, Lee Ann Kaskutas performed a meta-analysis of other studies looking at how effective Alcoholics Anonymous is. The article notes that "rates of abstinence are about twice as high among those who attend AA" but concluded that whether Alcoholics Anonymous has a specific effect is unclear (a specific effect, in this context, is whether it's the actual Alcoholics Anonymous program which helps keep people sober, instead of other factors, including the fact that people more motivated to stay sober will go to more meetings, or that the group support helps alcoholics regardless of the actual program, etc.), stating that there were "2 trials finding a positive effect for AA, 1 trial finding a negative effect for AA, and 1 trial finding a null effect."

The study reported that while the evidence base for twelve step groups from experimental studies was weak, "other categories of evidence... are overwhelmingly convincing". Specifically, the correlation between exposure to AA and outcome, the dose-response relationship, and the consistency of the association were found to be very strong. In other words, the frequency by which individuals attend meetings appears to have a statistically significant correlation with maintaining abstinence. Kaskutas noted two studies which both found that 70% of those who attended twelve-step groups at least weekly were abstaining from alcohol consumption at follow ups two and sixteen years later. Those who attended less than once per week showed about the same success rate as those who didn’t attend meetings. Kaskutas also found AA to function consistently with known behavioral change theories and substantial empirical support for specific mechanisms through which AA facilitates change.[24]

Cochrane Review 2006[edit]

The 2006 Cochrane systematic review reviewed studies published between 1966 and 2005 that investigated the efficacy of AA and twelve step facilitation (TSF) found no significant difference between the results of AA and twelve-step participation compared to other treatments, stating that the "available experimental studies did not demonstrate the effectiveness of AA or other 12-step approaches in reducing alcohol use and achieving abstinence compared with other treatments". This conclusion was based on a meta-analysis of the results of eight trials involving a total of 3,417 individuals;[16] the authors note that further efficacy studies are needed, and mention the presence of flaws in one included study regarding the definition of success of interventions.[16]

The review only looked at "experimental studies"; in the case of this Cochrane Review that meant that the only studies they considered were randomized controlled trials. Observational studies, including longitudinal studies, were not utilized. Kaskutas, in a 2008 letter criticizing the Cochrane review, said, among other things, that non-experimental research should have been considered:

I also urge providers to consider the mounting body of non-experimental research on AA's effectiveness, in judging what to tell patients. Experimental evidence is but one of the six criteria for establishing causation; for the other five criteria, the evidence for AA is compelling.[25]

The authors of the Cochrane review responded to this statement:

randomized controlled trials are only unnecessary when the strength of the association between two variables is sufficient to identify the treatment effect signal from the noise from bias and confounding. Nevertheless, [...] there are aspects of problematic alcohol use which can be difficult to study in experimental conditions.[25]

The review used the following studies: Brown 2002, Cloud 2004, Davis 2002, Kahler 2004, MATCH 1998, McCrady 1996, Walsh 1991, and Zenmore 2004

There have been multiple experimental studies showing Alcoholics Anonymous and twelve step facilitation effectiveness which are more recent than this Cochrane review, such as Litt et al. 2009 and Walitzer 2009.[4][17][18][12] John Kelly, who is working on the updated version of the Cochrane review concerning Alcoholics Anonymous, says that there are "positive results in favor of Twelve-Step Facilitation treatments that have emerged from the numerous NIH-sponsored randomized clinical trials completed since the original review published in 2006."[26]

Moos and Moos 2006[edit]

A 2006 study by Rudolf H. Moos and Bernice S. Moos saw a 67% success rate for the 24.9% of alcoholics who ended up, on their own, undergoing a lot of AA treatment: Of subjects highly involved with AA in their first year of alcohol treatment, 67% were sober 16 years later. The study looked at the outcome of a group of alcoholics seeking treatment over a 16-year period. The subjects decided on their own whether to use AA, and how much AA treatment they got. The study stated that "individuals who participated in AA for 27 weeks or more had better 16-year outcomes", showing that "only 34% of individuals who did not participate in AA in the first year were abstinent at 16 years, compared to 67% of individuals who participated in AA for 27 weeks or more."[3]

The study's results may be skewed by self-selection bias.[21]

Fiorentine 1999[edit]

Fiorentine 1999 was a 24-month longitudinal study measuring the effectiveness of AA and Narcotics Anonymous.

At the 24 month follow up, 74.8% of people who went to one or more meetings a week self-reported being completely sober, but only 40% of people who did not go to 12-step meetings claimed to be sober. Urinalysis showed 96.6% of people regularly going to meetings as sober, in contrast to the 88.9% of people who didn't go to meetings once a week or more whose urine sample was alcohol-free.[20]

Kownacki and Shadish 1999[edit]

A review of older experimental trials on AA, carried out by Kownacki and Shadish in the late 1990s, showed that randomized controlled trials showed a negative effect for AA, suggesting that coercion to AA yields worse outcomes than the outcomes of people who received other types of addiction treatment and those who received no treatment. However, other trials showed that AA had a positive effect.

This paper used the following coerced experimental trials where the AA treatment was, according to Kownacki and Shadish 1999, a conventional AA meeting: Brandsma et al. (1980), Ditman et al. (1967), and Walsh et al. (1991).[27]

Project MATCH (1998)[edit]

Project MATCH was an 8-year, multi site, $27-million investigation that studied which types of alcoholics respond best to which forms of treatment. MATCH studied whether treatment should be uniform or assigned to patients based on specific needs and characteristics. The study concluded that 12-step facilitation was as effective as the other psychotherapies studied.[28]

Walsh 1991[edit]

In 1991, Walsh and other researchers carried out a randomized controlled trial among 227 subjects. They were randomly assigned to mandated inpatient treatment, mandatory AA meetings, or allowing the subject a choice of options.[29]

This study was one of the eight studies used to determine the conclusions for Cochrane 2006.[16]

While the subjects assigned to inpatient treatment did better than the subjects only assigned to AA meetings, the inpatient treatment consisted of three AA meetings a week while in treatment, followed by a year of three AA meetings a week after the inpatient treatment ended; the study shows that inpatient treatment consisting of AA is more effective than just AA meetings.[24][12]

Brandsma 1980[edit]

The 1980 book Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism describes a mid-1970s study of 260 individuals, 184 referred by the courts and 76 self-referred or referred by other agencies. Participants were assigned randomly within five treatments, including an Alcoholics Anonymous-like meeting.[30] The study found that AA was more effective than no treatment, and about as effective as the other alcoholism treatments. Since the "Alcoholics Anonymous" treatment patients underwent in the Brandsma study did not use community Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and since there was no effort to stop the people in the control group from attending real Alcoholics Anonymous meetings,[31] later analysis says that there are "concerns with the Brandsma trial which call its experimental results into question".[24]

Ditman, et al. 1967[edit]

A 1967 study saw a judge in San Diego randomly assign (ordered) offenders to either clinical treatment, AA treatment, or to a no-treatment (control) group (but not denied AA meetings). After one year, 68% in the clinic group were rearrested, 69% in the AA group were rearrested, and 56% were rearrested in the group receiving no treatment. No statistically significant differences between the three groups were discovered in recidivism rate, in the number of subsequent rearrests or in time elapsed prior to rearrest.[32] Like the Brandsma study, the study did not stop people not assigned to AA treatment from going to AA meetings.[31]

Membership retention[edit]

Results from National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiological Survey[edit]

In 1992, the United States Census Bureau and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) conducted the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES). Direct face-to-face interviews were conducted with one randomly selected respondent, 18 years of age or older, in each of 42,862 households within the contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. NLAES respondents were asked whether they ever attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting for any reason related to their drinking. 1106 respondents (2.6% of the general population) stated they had attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting for their drinking prior to the past year. 348 respondents stated they attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting prior to the past year and continued to attend Alcoholics Anonymous during the past year, a 31% continuance rate.[33]

Results from NIAAA's National Epidemiological Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions[edit]

In 2001–2002, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) conducted the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions (NESARC). Similarly structured to the NLAES, the survey conducted in-person interviews with 43,093 individuals. This time, respondents were asked if they had ever attended a 12-step meeting for an alcohol problem in their lifetime (the question was not AA-specific). 1441 (3.4%) of respondents answered the question affirmatively. Answers were further broken down into three categories: disengaged, those who started attending at some point in the past but had ceased attending at some point in the past year (988); continued engagement, those who started attending at some point in the past and continued to attend during the past year (348); and newcomers, those who started attending during the past year (105).[34] In their discussion of the findings, Kaskautas et al. (2008) state that to study disengagement, only the disengaged and continued engagement should be utilized (pg. 270).[34]

Results from triennial surveys[edit]

To measure the retention of members, the 1968 AA General Service Conference voted to begin surveying those participating in AA.[35] A survey was conducted beginning that year and subsequent surveys have been conducted about every three years (triennially), the latest of which was from 2014.[35][36][37][38][39][40] The basic results of the surveys are made available in pamphlet form to AA members. Additional comments and analysis intended for academic and professional audiences were written to supplement the survey results from 1970 to 1990.[35] Non-alcoholic board of trustees member Dr. John [Jack] Norris wrote the second and third analyses. The second was presented at the North American Congress on Alcohol and Drug Problems,[41] the third was presented at the International Congress on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence.[42]

The 1990 commentary evaluated data of triennial surveys from 1977 through 1989 and found that after the first year, the rate of attrition slows. Only those in the first year were recorded by month. The survey states that the data "strongly suggests that about half those who come to A.A. are gone within three months."[43] Comments published by AA about this survey claim that 26% of people who attend AA meetings continue attending for more than one year; this is very close to the results from several independent assessments.[44][45] In the previous surveys, this group (those remaining active for ninety days) would be the only ones considered to have "tried AA".[35] After the first year, the rate of attrition slows. The nature of the survey questions asked did not allow a direct comparison between the twelfth month of the first year and the first month of the second year. Only those in the first year were recorded by month.[43] The necessity of an introductory period was not considered in the 1990 analysis, and the concept was not present in its analysis.[35]

The popular press[edit]

The Sober Truth[edit]

Dodes, in The Sober Truth, says that most people who have experienced AA have not achieved long-term sobriety, stating that research indicates that only five to eight percent of the people who go to one or more AA meetings achieve sobriety for longer than one year.[14] Gabrielle Glaser used Dodes' figures to state that AA has a low success rate in a 2015 article for The Atlantic, which says that better alternatives than Alcoholics Anonymous for alcohol treatment are available.[15]

The 5–8% figure put forward by Dodes is controversial;[13] Thomas Beresford, MD. says that the book uses "three separate, questionable, calculations that arrive at the 5–8% figure."[46][47] The New York Times calls The Sober Truth a "polemical and deeply flawed book".[48] John Kelly and Gene Beresin state that the book's conclusion that "[12-step] approaches are almost completely ineffective and even harmful in treating substance use disorders" is wrong (Dodes responded by pointing out that "I have never said that AA is harmful in general"), noting that "studies published in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals have found that 12-step treatments that facilitate engagement with AA post-discharge [...] produce about one third higher continuous abstinence rates."[12][49] Jeffrey D. Roth and Edward J. Khantzian, in their review of The Sober Truth, called Dodes' reasoning against AA success a "pseudostatistical polemic."[50]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Frequently Asked Questions: Searching for Alcohol Treatment". NIAAA. 2018-11-29. the free and flexible support provided by mutual help groups can help people make and sustain beneficial changes and thus promote recovery
  2. ^ https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/sites/default/files/chapter-5-recovery.pdf Page 5-2
  3. ^ a b c Moos, Rudolf H.; Moos, BS (June 2006). "Participation in Treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous: A 16-Year Follow-Up of Initially Untreated Individuals". Journal of Clinical Psychology. 62 (6): 735–750. doi:10.1002/jclp.20259. PMC 2220012. PMID 16538654.
  4. ^ a b c d Humphreys; Blodgett; Wagner (2014). "Estimating the efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous without self-selection bias: an instrumental variables re-analysis of randomized clinical trials". Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 38 (11): 2688–94. doi:10.1111/acer.12557. PMC 4285560. PMID 25421504.
  5. ^ Walitzer; Dermen; Barrick (2009). "Facilitating involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous during out-patient treatment: a randomized clinical trial". Addiction. 104 (3): 391–401. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02467.x. PMC 2802221. PMID 19207347.
  6. ^ Litt, Kadden; Kabela-Cormier, Petry (2009). "Changing network support for drinking: network support project 2-year follow-up". J Consult Clin Psychol. 77 (2): 229–42. doi:10.1037/a0015252. PMC 2661035. PMID 19309183.
  7. ^ Moos, Rudolf H.; Moos, BS (February 2006). "Rates and predictors of relapse after natural and treated remission from alcohol use disorders". Addiction. 101 (2): 212–222. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01310.x. PMC 1976118. PMID 16445550.
  8. ^ Ståhlbrandt, Henriettæ; Johnsson, Kent O.; Berglund, Mats (2007). "Two-Year Outcome of Alcohol Interventions in Swedish University Halls of Residence: A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Brief Skills Training Program, Twelve-Step Influenced Intervention, and Controls". Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 31 (3): 458–66. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00327.x. PMID 17295731.
  9. ^ Terra, Mauro Barbosa; Barros, Helena Maria Tannhauser; Stein, Airton Tetelbom; Figueira, Ivan; Palermo, Luiz Henrique; Athayde, Luciana Dias; Gonçalves, Marcelo de Souza; Da Silveira, Dartiu Xavier (2008). "Do Alcoholics Anonymous Groups Really Work? Factors of Adherence in a Brazilian Sample of Hospitalized Alcohol Dependents". American Journal on Addictions. 17 (1): 48–53. doi:10.1080/10550490701756393. PMID 18214722.
  10. ^ Lopez, German. "Why some people swear by Alcoholics Anonymous — and others despise it". Vox. About a third of people maintain recovery from alcohol addiction due to 12-step treatment, another third get something out of the treatment but not enough for full recovery, and another third get nothing at all.
  11. ^ a b Frakt, Austin (2015-04-06). "Alcoholics Anonymous and the Challenge of Evidence-Based Medicine". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-06-21.
  12. ^ a b c d e Kelly, John F.; Beresin, Gene (7 April 2014). "In Defense of 12 Steps: What Science Really Tells Us about Addiction". WBUR's Common Health: Reform and Reality. Archived from the original on 2014-04-11. Retrieved 2018-01-05.
  13. ^ a b Singal, Jesse. "Why Alcoholics Anonymous Works". The Cut. Retrieved 2017-12-25. [Lance Dodes] has estimated, as Glaser puts it, that "AA's actual success rate [is] somewhere between 5 and 8 percent," but this is a very controversial figure among addiction researchers.
  14. ^ a b Lance Dodes, M.D.; Zachary Dodes (2014). The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry. ISBN 978-0-8070-3315-9. University of California professor Herbert Fingarette cited two [...] statistics: at eighteen months, 25 percent of people still attended AA, and of those who did attend, 22 percent consistently maintained sobriety. [Reference: H. Fingarette, Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)] Taken together, these numbers show that about 5.5 percent of all those who started with AA became sober members.
  15. ^ a b Glaser, Gabrielle. "The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2016-04-15.
  16. ^ a b c d Ferri, Marcia; Amato, Laura; Davoli, Marina (19 July 2006). "Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3): CD005032. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005032.pub2. PMID 16856072.
  17. ^ a b Litt, Mark; Kadden, Ronald; Kabela-Cormier, Elise; Petry, Nancy (2009). "Changing Network Support for Drinking: Network Support Project Two-Year Follow-up". J Consult Clin Psychol. 77 (2): 229–242. doi:10.1037/a0015252. PMC 2661035. PMID 19309183.
  18. ^ a b Walitzer; Dermen; Barrick (2009). "Facilitating involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous during out-patient treatment: a randomized clinical trial". Addiction. 104 (3): 391–401. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02467.x. PMC 2802221. PMID 19207347.
  19. ^ In Moos and Moos 2006, only 24.9% of alcoholics ended up, on their own, being heavily involved with AA. In the 1992 NLAES survey, only 31% of alcoholics were still heavily involved with AA a year later. AA's own 1990 Triennial Survey saw that AA had 26% the number of members in their 12th month sober compared to the number of alcoholics in their first month sober.
  20. ^ a b Fiorentine, Robert (1999). "After Drug Treatment: Are 12-Step Programs Effective in Maintaining Abstinence?". Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 25 (1): 96–116. doi:10.1081/ADA-100101848. PMID 10078980.
  21. ^ a b Szalavitz, Maia (2016). Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction. the research that does show AA to be effective is overwhelmingly flawed by what is known as selection bias.
  22. ^ Witkiewitz, K.; Litten, R. Z.; Leggio, L. (2019). "Advances in the science and treatment of alcohol use disorder". Science Advances. 5 (9): eaax4043. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax4043. PMC 6760932. PMID 31579824. selection biases (e.g., people selecting to attend these groups) raise difficulties in assessing whether other factors that are associated with treatment effectiveness may be the active ingredients for improving outcomes among those who attend mutual support groups
  23. ^ Zemore, Sarah E; Lui, Camillia; Mericle, Amy; Hemberg, Jordana; Kaskutas, Lee Ann (2018). "A longitudinal study of the comparative efficacy of Women for Sobriety, LifeRing, SMART Recovery, and 12-step groups for those with AUD". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 88: 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2018.02.004. PMC 5884451. PMID 29606223. Lay summary.
  24. ^ a b c Kaskutas, Lee Ann (2009). "Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science". Journal of Addictive Diseases. 28 (2): 145–157. doi:10.1080/10550880902772464. PMC 2746426. PMID 19340677.
  25. ^ a b Kaskutas, Lee Ann (August 2008). "Comments on the Cochrane Review on Alcoholics Anonymous effectiveness". Addiction. 103 (8): 1402–3, author reply 1403–4. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02240.x. PMID 18855832.
  26. ^ Singal, Jessee (2015-03-17). "Why Alcoholics Anonymous Works". New York Magazine.
  27. ^ Kownacki, Richard J; Shadish, William R (1999). "Does Alcoholics Anonymous Work? The Results from a Meta-Analysis of Controlled Experiments". Substance Use & Misuse. 34 (13): 1897. doi:10.3109/10826089909039431.
  28. ^ Keith Humphreys. "Here's proof that Alcoholics Anonymous is just as effective as professional psychotherapies". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-05-31. Retrieved 2018-05-29. AA skeptics were confident that by putting AA up against the best professional psychotherapies in a highly rigorous study, Project MATCH would prove beyond doubt that the 12-steps were mumbo jumbo. The skeptics were humbled: Twelve-step facilitation was as effective as the best psychotherapies professionals had developed.
  29. ^ Walsh, Diana Chapman; Hingson, Ralph W.; Merrigan, Daniel M.; Levenson, Suzette Morelogk; Cupples, L. Adrienne; Heeren, Timothy; Coffman, Gerald A.; Becker, Charles A.; Barker, Thomas A.; Hamilton, Susan K.; McGuire, Thomas G.; Kelly, Cecil A. (1991). "A Randomized Trial of Treatment Options for Alcohol-Abusing Workers". New England Journal of Medicine. 325 (11): 775–782. doi:10.1056/NEJM199109123251105. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 1870651.
  30. ^ Brandsma, Jeffery M; Maultsby, Maxie C; Welsh, Richard J (1980). Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism: a review and comparative study. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. ISBN 978-0-8391-1393-5. OCLC 5219646.
  31. ^ a b Magura, Stephen; Cleland, Charles M.; Tonigan, J. Scott (2013). "Evaluating Alcoholics Anonymous's Effect on Drinking in Project MATCH Using Cross-Lagged Regression Panel Analysis". Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 74 (3): 378–85. doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.378. PMC 3602358. PMID 23490566. "The few randomized controlled trials of AA that have been conducted are significantly limited in their methods or interpretability [...] some alcoholism study subjects always go to AA on their own, even if not specifically assigned to go".
  32. ^ Ditman, Keith S.; Crawford, George G.; Forgy, Edward W.; Moskowitz, Herbert; MacAndrew, Craig (1967). "A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests". American Journal of Psychiatry. 124 (2): 160–163. doi:10.1176/ajp.124.2.160. PMID 4951569.
  33. ^ National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey Data, Manual 1 July 11, 1994, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
  34. ^ a b Kaskutas, Lee Ann; Ye, Yu; Greenfield, Thomas K.; Witbrodt, Jane; Bond, Jason (30 June 2008). Epidemiology or Alcoholics Anonymous Participation. Recent Developments in Alcoholism. Recent Developments in Alcoholism. 18. pp. 261–282. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77725-2_15. ISBN 978-0-387-77724-5. PMID 19115774.
  35. ^ a b c d e McIntire, Don (December 2000). "How Well Does A.A. Work? An Analysis of Published A.A. Surveys (1968–1996) and Related Analyses/Comments". Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 18 (4): 1–18. doi:10.1300/J020v18n04_01.
  36. ^ "Alcoholics Anonymous 2004 Membership Survey" (PDF). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services' General Service Office. 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-12-12. Retrieved 2013-03-19. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  37. ^ "Alcoholics Anonymous 1998 membership survey". New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. 1999. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  38. ^ "Alcoholics Anonymous 2001 membership survey". New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. 2002. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  39. ^ "Alcoholics Anonymous 2007 Membership Survey" (PDF). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-12-20. Retrieved 2009-12-19. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  40. ^ "Alcoholics Anonymous 2014 Membership Survey" (PDF). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. 2014. Retrieved 2019-10-07. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  41. ^ Norris, John (18 December 1974). Analysis of the 1974 Survey of the Membership of A.A. North American Congress on Alcohol and Drug Problems. San Francisco, CA.
  42. ^ Norris, John (3 September 1978). Analysis of the 1977 Survey of the Membership of A.A. 32nd International Congress on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. Warsaw, Poland.
  43. ^ a b "Comments On A.A. Triennial Surveys". Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. December 1990. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  44. ^ Adrian, Manuella (2012). "Can Failure Carefully Observed Become a Springboard to Success?". Substance Use & Misuse. 47 (13–14): 1384–1397. doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.706178. PMID 23186418. the Alcoholics Anonymous triennial surveys from 1977 through 1989 found that one quarter (26%) of those who first attend an AA meeting are still attending after 1 year
  45. ^ Lance Dodes, M.D.; Zachary Dodes (2014). The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry. ISBN 978-0-8070-3315-9. AA itself has published a comparable figure in a set of comments on its own thirteen-year internal survey, stating that only 26 percent of people who attend AA stay for longer than one year
  46. ^ Beresford, Thomas (2016), Alcoholics Anonymous and The Atlantic: A Call For Better Science, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, archived from the original on 2019-07-15, retrieved 2019-07-16, [Herbert Fingarette used] two publications from the Rand Corporation [...] At 4-year follow-up the Rand group identified patients with at least one year abstinence who had been regular members of AA 18 months after the start of treatment: 42% of the regular AA members were abstinent, not the "calculated" 5.5% figure.
  47. ^ Emrick, Chad; Beresford, Thomas (2016). "Contemporary Negative Assessments of Alcoholics Anonymous: A Response". Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 34 (4): 463–471. doi:10.1080/07347324.2016.1217713.
  48. ^ Friedman, Richard A. (2014-05-05). "Taking Aim at 12-Step Programs". The New York Times.
  49. ^ Humphreys, Keith; Moos, Rudolf (May 2001). "Can encouraging substance abuse patients to participate in self-help groups reduce demand for health care? A quasi-experimental study". Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 25 (5): 711–716. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2001.tb02271.x. PMID 11371720. 12-step patients had higher rates of abstinence at follow-up (45.7% versus 36.2% for patients from CB [cognitive-behavioral] programs, p < 0.001)
  50. ^ Roth, Jeffrey D; Khantzian, Edward J (2015). "Book Review: The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science behind 12-step Programs and the Rehab Industry". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 63: 197–202. doi:10.1177/0003065114565235.

Further reading[edit]