Helping other alcoholics in alcoholics anonymous and drinking outcomes

This isn't a new article, but seemed worth sharing. Researchers demonstrate what mutual aid groups have known for decades. Helping other alcoholics helps the helper stay sober.

OBJECTIVE: Although Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is the largest mutual-help organization for alcoholics in the world, its specific mechanisms that mobilize and sustain behavior change are poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to examine prospectively the relationship between helping other alcoholics and relapse in the year following treatment for alcohol use disorders. METHOD: Data were derived from Project MATCH, a longitudinal prospective investigation of the efficacy of three behavioral treatments for alcohol abuse and dependence. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to calculate probabilities of time to alcohol relapse. To identify the unique value of helping other alcoholics when controlling for the number of AA meetings attended, proportional hazards regressions were conducted to determine whether the likelihood of relapse was lower for those who were helping other alcoholics. RESULTS: There were no demographic differences that distinguished participants in regard to involvement in helping other alcoholics, with the exception of age; those who were helping other alcoholics were, on average, 3 years older than those who were not helping alcoholics. Those who were helping were significantly less likely to relapse in the year following treatment, independent of the number of AA meetings attended. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide compelling evidence that recovering alcoholics who help other alcoholics maintain long-term sobriety following formal treatment are themselves better able to maintain their own sobriety. Clinicians who treat persons with substance abuse disorders should encourage their clients to help other recovering alcoholics to stay sober.

It would be interesting to look at two more things:

• If these finding hold up in other mutual aid groups. I suspect they would.
• We know that mutual aid group involvement is a better predictor of recovery than attendance. 12 step work is frequently identified as an indicator of involvement. It would be interesting to see if the benefits of helping are are different or more powerful than other forms of mutual aid group involvement.
  

Technorati tags: recovery, alcoholism, aa, mutual_aid, research, addiction

Powered by ScribeFire.

Five Myths About Crack

A Washington Post Op-Ed contributor offers some guidance to the supreme court in the form of 5 myths about crack:

1. Crack is different than cocaine.
2. Crack is instantly and inevitably addicting.
3. The "plague" of crack use spread quickly into all sectors of society.
4. Crack is the direct cause of violent crime.
5. Harsh sentences for crack are necessary to deter "serious" and "major traffickers."

Technorati Tags: cocaine, crack, policy, criminalization, addiction

Powered by ScribeFire.

Seizure Drug May Treat Alcoholism

Topiramate has been used to treat alcoholism for a little while now and was featured in the HBO Addiction series. This story has been very widely reported over the last few days. It may become a useful tool for a small number of alcoholics, but I find the results reported in this article pretty underwhelming:

Compared with placebo treatment, treatment with Topamax was associated with an 8 percent greater reduction in the percentage of heavy drinking days during the trial, the researchers reported.

Researcher Bankole Johnson, MD, tells WebMD that alcoholics in the trial who took Topamax went from the equivalent of drinking a bottle and a half of wine a day to about 3 1/2 glasses of wine.

"I think that is a big difference," he says. "Most people can manage that amount of alcohol without getting into too much trouble."

The researchers reported that Topamax users had a greater rate of achieving 28 or more days of continuous nonheavy drinking during the study and 28 days of continuous abstinence.

The manufacturer has also been accused of promoting off-label use:

But in a letter to the FDA, the consumer interest group Public Citizen accused the company of illegally promoting use of the drug for this purpose.

While doctors can legally prescribe FDA-approved drugs for nonapproved conditions, it is illegal for the companies that market the drugs to promote these so-called "off label" uses.

The Public Citizen complaint involved a question-and-answer sheet distributed to the media before publication of the study, which specifically discussed the drug's potential "off label" use for alcohol dependence.

Kara Russell of Ortho-McNeill tells WebMD that the company knew nothing about the question-and-answer sheet until the Public Citizen letter became public."

Ortho-McNeil Neurologics does not support any reference to off label use of its products and only promotes the use of Topamax in the approved indication of migraine and epilepsy treatment," Russell says.

I'm not surprised. I've wondered what arrangement led to the prominent placement of topiramate in the HBO series. It was practically an infomercial and led the lay people I know to grossly overestimate the effectiveness of the drug.




Technorati Tags: topiramate, addiction, alcoholism, treatment, research, medication

Powered by ScribeFire.

More on the new Canadian drug plan

65% for prevention and treatment (including culturally specific treatment) doesn't exactly sound Draconian:

The Conservative government's new $63.8-million, two-year drug strategy could be worse, but it could be better.Fully half the money will go toward beefing up treatment for addicts. Since health and social services are mainly a provincial responsibility, however, that money will go mainly to development of national benchmarking - so that evaluations can be consistent across the country - and extra programs for aboriginals. The main burden of helping addicts remains with the provinces.Another $10 million will go to prevention - ad campaigns and brochures to remind people, especially young people, how damaging addiction is. "Drugs are dangerous and destructive," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, unveiling the plan. "If drugs do get hold of you, there will be help to get you off them."

Based on American experience, mandatory minimum sentences don't seem like a wise move, but why not start lobbying and negotiating instead of calling them idiots.


Technorati Tags: canada, addiction, treatment, prevention, policy

Powered by ScribeFire.

Cash for safe drug injection "off mark"

How about getting these people into treatment? Do they have waiting lists for treatment in Australia?

...Jann Stuckey said the Queensland Injectors Health Network was distributing flyers headed: "Wanna make some cash?"

They offered $110 cash payments to intravenous drug users willing to teach others safe injecting techniques, or, "learn a bit, share a bit and make a bit".

Ms Stuckey said it was not a responsible way to deliver a harm minimisation program.

"To pay drug addicts in this manner, knowing that the $110 will almost certainly be their next hit, is grossly irresponsible," she told reporters on Tuesday.

Ms Stuckey said she believed the program was not effective because it did not focus on getting people off drugs.

"Without that support, these facilities are nothing more than needle hand-outs," she said.

"The public have for many years been led to believe these are needle exchanges, and sadly, this is not true."

Premier Anna Bligh said Queensland Health had ordered the advertisements be withdrawn at least six months ago.

She agreed the program, jointly funded by the state and commonwealth governments, would offend some people, but said "unconventional" methods were sometimes required.

"Sometimes they have to go to extreme lengths to engage with these people," Ms Bligh said.

Technorati Tags: harm_reduction, australia, addiction, hiv_aids

Powered by ScribeFire.

More criticism of Canadian drug policy plan

First off, I am not at all in favor a the war on drugs and I'm skeptical of this new plan. (In my limited understanding, it emphasizes criminalization.) However, I believe that these comments from Stephen Harper make a lot of sense:

Harper unveiled a $63.8-million, two-year drug strategy in Winnipeg Thursday, saying harm reduction is not a "distinct pillar" of the Conservative strategy.

Vancouver's safe injection site is "a second-best strategy at best," he said, "because if you remain a drug addict, I don't care how much harm you reduce, you're going to have a short and miserable life."
...
Harper said Thursday: "I remain a skeptic that you can tell people we won't stop the drug trade, we won't get you off drugs, we won't even send messages to discourage drug use, but somehow we will keep you addicted and yet reduce the harm just the same."

These comments have been met with accusations of ignorance:

Mark Townsend, director of the Portland Hotel Society in Vancouver, said Harper doesn't understand the scourge of drug addiction.

"It's depressing to see his [Harper's] lack of leadership on that and now he is out there trying to find a new study that will say the world is flat," Townsend said.

A columnist for the Victoria Times-Colonist rails against the plan:

The problems of ideology-based governance clearly must be more obvious from afar. Otherwise, Canadians wouldn't be able to bear the hypocrisy of railing against oppressive and backward regimes elsewhere in the world while committing ourselves anew to the folly of a war on drugs.

...

The real tragedy is that the misuse of drugs continues to cost us $40 billion a year in Canada in direct and indirect costs, and that's not even counting all the billions we've thrown away on misguided and ideologically driven attempts to do something about that.

Here's the thing: Health issues can't be resolved through ideology.

...

So why do we continue to let our elected politicians ignore the science when it comes to drug issues? Why should anybody's poorly informed position around drug use be the lens that we apply when trying to address complex health and social problems that are far too important to be left to political whim?

I respect the right of Stephen Harper and his MPs to believe that using illicit drugs is bad. It's a free country and they're welcome to their opinions, and never mind that alcohol is actually Canada's most dangerous and readily available drug by a long shot. (The social costs of alcohol use in Canada are more than double that of all illicit drugs combined and health-related costs are three times higher.)

But why would we want to base something as important as our national drug strategy on opinion and belief?

We've got six decades worth of scientific studies underlining the importance of an informed, health-based approach in reducing the harm and societal costs of drug use. Yet we're still letting vital public policy be decided by people who would rather maintain their personal fictions than take steps to fix the problems.

This complete rejection of the role of values in policy decisions can't be serious. What about torture? Is the only acceptable argument against torture and argument that it doesn't work? I don't know anything about this writer, but I suspect she believes it is wrong and would oppose any pro-torture policy on moral grounds--even if torture was scientifically proven to be effective.

Granted, there's a long distance between torture and drug policy. The point is that we base policy decisions on values and morals all the time, even in health care. Are Canada's universal health care policies and the U.S. SCHIP programs based in pragmatism? They're based on moral
convictions about providing access to health care. Furthermore, the argument that harm reduction activism is value-free and rooted only in science is folly. HR arguments are consistently value-laden. For example, common themes include:

• Drug use is not bad
• Self-determination and personal liberty trump competing concerns
• Drug experimentation is a normal developmental task for adolescents

Would it be so difficult to build a dialog on drug policy around values? For example:

• Drug use is bad for addicts
• Recovery is the ideal outcome and should never be abandoned as a goal
• No one should be incarcerated for simple personal possession or use
• If an addict refuses recovery, we should still provide assistance with basic needs
  

How much common ground could be developed? What policy initiatives might arise?

One other truth that activists on both sides need to accept is that any policy that does not enjoy broad and deep public support will always be in peril. The general public will never embrace a policy focused on incarceration or a policy focused on needle exchanges, safe injection centers and drug maintenance programs.

Technorati Tags: harm_reduction, canada, addiction, policy