AA is a complete abstinence program. For most people who go to AA, that's not necessary. It's the people who can't stop no matter what and who can't moderate themselves no matter what that happens who need total abstinence. While some sources have criticized the AA for having a low success rate, the rate is likely not to be 5%, as some say.
7 Another study mentioned in the same publication looked at a smaller outpatient sample. The results concluded that more than 70% of people who attended a 12-step-a-week program for 6 months before the two-year follow-up point abstained from alcohol. Another study conducted on people with an untreated drinking problem showed that 70% of people with 27 weeks or more of AA abstained from using alcohol at 16 years of follow-up. In addition, the study revealed that people with a shorter period of time in AA had lower rates of abstinence, 11. It's not just that the AA has a success rate of 5 to 10 percent, but if it was successful and neutral the rest of the time, we would say that's okay.
But it is harmful to 90 percent to those who are not doing well. And it's harmful for several important reasons. One of them is that everyone believes that AA is the right treatment. AA is never wrong, according to AA.
If you fail at AA, you are the one who has failed. There is growing evidence that the success rate for AA ranges from 5 to 10 percent. Alcoholics Anonymous surveys its members every few years. Your survey of 6,500 members in the US.
UU. ,. And Canada showed that 35 percent of its members stayed sober for more than five years, 34 percent stayed sober for one to five years, and 31 percent were sober for less than a year. Most studies that measured abstinence found that AA was significantly better than other interventions or no intervention at all.
In one study, it was found to be 60% more effective. None of the studies found AA to be less effective. There is currently a great deal of evidence looking at the success rate of AA, and the success rate of AA is between 5 and 10 percent. It should be noted that none of these studies attempted to randomly assign patients to AA per se; instead, they focused on interventions intended to facilitate AA participation.
One approach, used in two studies on the efficacy of AA, is an econometric method that uses so-called “instrumental variables” to analyze attendance at AA. Meetings provide an opportunity to share your difficulties (and learn to talk about your feelings), increase motivation to abstain and get out of yourself (and change your mood) by listening to other people talk about their problems and how AA has helped them. Critics of AA have argued that AA is a cult that is based on God as its mechanism of action, and that rigorous experimental studies are needed to convince them of the efficacy of AA. For example, the Cochrane Group published a review of the literature on AA that considered outcome studies on AA and on 12-step facilitation (“TSF”, a specialized form of treatment that introduces clients to the 12-step philosophy and support system).
The purpose of this article is to provide a focused review of the literature on the efficacy of AA that allows readers to judge for themselves the evidence of AA's efficacy. A significantly higher amount of binge drinking was observed in the 3 months of follow-up in people randomly assigned to the special AA meeting (2.37 in the last 3 months) than in the other conditions (0.26 in lay therapy and 0.56 in controls), but no difference in abstinence was reported; however, at the 1-year follow-up, all measures of alcohol consumption, including withdrawal rates, were similar in all conditions (the result was not shown). Given these challenges when it comes to conducting rigorous randomized trials on the efficacy of AA, researchers have turned to statistical methods to address the selection bias associated with assisting AA in observational studies. The AA model, open to all and free, has spread around the world, and AA now has more than 2 million members in 180 countries and more than 118,000 groups.
The objective was not to provide another comprehensive review of the literature on the efficacy of AA, but to present studies representative of the efficacy of AA in accordance with the criteria for establishing causality. Most of the previous studies considered simultaneous attendance at AA and, therefore, did not meet the fourth criterion of evidence of causality. .
Leave Message