Background: Many studies suggest that participation in 12-step groups contributes to better recovery outcomes, but people often object to such groups and most do not sustain regular involvement. Yet, research on alternatives to 12-step groups is very sparse. The present study aimed to extend the knowledge base on mutual help group alternatives for those with an alcohol use disorder (AUD), sampling from large, active, abstinence-focused groups including Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing, and SMART Recovery (SMART). This paper presents a cross-sectional analysis of this longitudinal study, using baseline data to describe the profile and participation characteristics of attendees of these groups in comparison to 12-step members.
Methods: Data from participants 18 and over with a lifetime AUD (N=651) were collected using Web-based surveys. Members of alternative 12-step groups were recruited in collaboration with group directors, who helped publicize the study by emailing meeting conveners and attendees and posting announcements on social media. A comparison group of current (past-30-day) 12-step attendees was recruited from an online meeting hub for recovering persons. Interested parties were directed to a Webpage where they were screened, and eligible participants completed an online survey assessing demographic and clinical variables; in-person and online mutual help involvement; and group satisfaction and cohesion. Analyses involved comparing those identifying WFS, SMART, and LifeRing as their primary group to 12-step members on the above characteristics.
Results: Compared to 12-step members, members of the mutual help alternatives were less religious and generally higher on education and income. WFS and LifeRing members were also older, more likely to be married, and lower on lifetime drug and psychiatric severity; meanwhile, LifeRing and SMART members were less likely to endorse the most stringent abstinence goal. Finally, despite lower levels of in-person meeting attendance, members of all the 12-step alternatives showed equivalent activity involvement and higher levels of satisfaction and cohesion, compared to 12-step members.
Conclusions: Results suggest differences across 12-step groups and their alternatives that may be relevant when advising clients on a choice of mutual help group. Meanwhile, findings for high levels of participation, satisfaction, and cohesion among members of the mutual help alternatives suggest promise for these groups in addressing addiction problems.
Keywords: 12-step groups; AUD; Alcohol dependence; Alcohol disorder; Alcoholics Anonymous; Mutual help alternative; Peer support; Treatment.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.