Another study finding the 12-step involvement is associated with continuous abstinence:
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
- Changes in brain gray matter in abstinent heroin addicts (addictionandrecoverynews.wordpress.com)
5 thoughts on “More evidence for 12-step approaches”
“…12-step programs …are associated with continuous abstinence from both alcohol and illicit drugs among substance dependent (what an enabling word) persons”.
AND the best part – DRUM ROLL – it’s FREE…
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…
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)
Comments are closed.