More evidence for 12-step approaches

~ Jason Schwartz
photo credit: Jeff Tabaco

Another study finding the 12-step involvement is associated with continuous abstinence:

Abstract

A longitudinal analysis of 12-step involvement was conducted among a U.S. sample of patients exiting treatment for substance dependence. Categorical involvement in a set of 12-step activities and summary scores of involvement from the Alcoholics Anonymous Affiliation Scale were examined in relation to continuous abstinence and aftercare (Oxford House or usual care) condition. Participants who were categorically involved in 12-step activities were significantly more likely to maintain continuous abstinence at 2 years compared with those who were less involved, predicting a greater likelihood of complete abstinence than summary scores of involvement. In addition, participants in the Oxford House condition were significantly more likely to remain continuously abstinent throughout the course of this randomized clinical trial. Findings suggest that categorical involvement in a set of 12-step activities and communal-living settings such as Oxford Houses are independent factors associated with continuous abstinence from both alcohol and illicit drugs among substance dependent persons.

In case you’re wondering what “categorical 12-step involvment is, here’s the definition:

Categorical 12-step involvement is a term used to indicate simultaneous involvement in several 12-step activities

 

Related articles

 

Published by Jason Schwartz

I have been an addiction professional and social worker since 1994. I started blogging in 2005 as the Clinical Director at Dawn Farm. I no longer work at Dawn Farm and am now the Director of Behavioral Medicine at a community hospital, and a lecturer at Eastern Michigan University’s School of Social Work. Views expressed here are my own. Keep in mind that the field, the contexts in which the field operates, and my views have changed over time.

5 thoughts on “More evidence for 12-step approaches”

  2. I believe that the term “dependent” is an enabling word. Doctors had my son convinced that he would “die” without his medications. They had him thinking he was like a Type 1 diabetic. He really thought he would die without his “meds”. Branding young children with a label like this is particularly offensive because they “believe” it. Needless to say, he died from his “dependence”.

    I would love to know who coined that term. Its’ origins can no doubt be traced back to pharmaceutical companies…

    S.T.
    http://www.SuboxoneAbuse.Wordpress.com

  3. Looks like good news and fits in with most of the existing literature. Do we know the magnitude of the association? (I can’t get hold of the original paper)

  4. Pingback: Denial and the Unreality of the Glass Menagerie - Far From Normal
  5. Pingback: 2012′s most popular posts #8 – Another Reaction to Hazelden’s Adoption of Suboxone | Addiction & Recovery News

Comments are closed.