Alcoholics Anonymous vs. Other Approaches: The Evidence Is Now In.
'An updated review shows it performs better than other common treatments and is less expensive.
For a long time, medical researchers were unsure whether Alcoholics Anonymous worked better than other approaches to treating people with alcohol use disorder. In 2006, a review of the evidence concluded we didn’t have enough evidence to judge.
That has changed.
An updated systematic review published Wednesday by the Cochrane Collaboration found that A.A. leads to increased rates and lengths of abstinence compared with other common treatments. On other measures, like drinks per day, it performs as well as approaches provided by individual therapists or doctors who don’t rely on A.A.’s peer connections.
What changed? In short, the latest review incorporates more and better evidence. The research is based on an analysis of 27 studies involving 10,565 participants.
The 2006 Cochran Collaboration review was based on just eight studies, and ended with a call for more research to assess the program’s efficacy. In the intervening years, researchers answered the call. The newer review also applied standards that weeded out some weaker studies that drove earlier findings.
In the last decade or so, researchers have published a number of very high-quality randomized trials and quasi-experiments. Of the 27 studies in the new review, 21 have randomized designs. Together, these flip the conclusion.
“These results demonstrate A.A.’s effectiveness in helping people not only initiate but sustain abstinence and remission over the long term,” said the review’s lead author, John F. Kelly, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital. “The fact that A.A. is free and so widely available is also good news.
“It’s the closest thing in public health we have to a free lunch.”'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymous-new-evidence.html?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Started going to meetings at about 210 pounds. Now about 155 and been at about 160-165 for 39 years. I am writing these words because the program has saved my life. I am grateful in ways that no one knows. (oh, one more fact, - 5 foot 6 and one half inches tall.) (sorry for posting twice..hope it doesn't matter..Oh well........maybe the moderator will object..........oops...that's me...
......................
........ .....not the worst thing I have ever done.....
In the United States, alcohol is a larger killer than other drugs; accounts for the majority of all addiction treatment cases; and is responsible for at least $250 billion per year in lost productivity and costs related to crime, incarceration and health care. Moreover, American deaths related to alcohol more than doubled between 1999 and 2017.
Reducing the human and financial burdens of alcohol is an often overlooked public health priority, and the new evidence suggests that on balance one of the oldest solutions — Alcoholics Anonymous has been around almost 85 years — is still the better one.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Stuart's opinion on this.....................................................................................
Most people do not know this, but the leading health problem in the U.S.A. is not booze, not illegal drugs,but being overweight, and heart issues related to being overweight. It is my opinion (yes an opinion without proof) that if people went to OA (Overeaters Anonymous) as often as people go to AA, there would be far less food problems & that would save hundreds of thousands of lives. Now, studies about OA are very rare, but, I think similar conclusions would be drawn. (studies about overeating are not rare at all)
The problems with over eating in the U.S.A. far outweigh (Yes, I used that word.. ..) those of booze. I have read that between 35 and 40% of people in the U.S. have an overweight problem. It is much easier to eat sugar products, (like candy) and fat products like Pizza, than drink booze. I started my
sugar addiction at age 10. The taste of the stuff was so good and sweet. I didn't have to be 21 to buy any of my candy friends, and my candy friends were available in far more places than the booze.
There was no questions about my "candy friends" like there would be with booze friends. Sweets were and are totally accepted everywhere in the U.S.A. Who says to a 10 year old, don't eat that food, (ice cream) because it is .."ILLEGAL"? Someone might say that to a 10 year old drinking 4 or 5 shots of whiskey, but no not a word about eating of a lot of ice cream and as opposed to drinking booze. Yes, eating sweets is..." encouraged."
...Think about this....What kind of product is passed out when someone has a ..."BIRTHDAY"? That
product is not "birthday booze"....but they call it ..."BIRTHDAY CAKE" and often served with...
(are you ready?) " ICE CREAM.."...Therefore it is easy for a 10 year old get addicted to the nice smooth
taste of Birthday Cake with lots of gobs and gobs of that person's favorite "Ice Cream."
...And if you don't think that a 10 year old can get addicted to cake and ice cream, then you belong
at another group (not this one) at Democratic Underground. Take a look at some of our 10 to 12 year
old kids in grammar school, and you will have your answer.
........Enough Stuart, take a break and get a drink of water, not sweat Coca Cola or some other sweat
stuff that can kill you....Oh Stuart, stop... that one sweat glass of Sweat Cola won't hurt you.
.......................Now where have we heard that before?................................
Well, Well Well, that is swell. the above link has more than a picture or two of SODAS.
QUITE A FEW PICTURES I MIGHT ADD....AND THESE ARE NOT NAUGHTY PICTURES.
..........check the link if you don't believe me......
