Alcoholics Anonymous, a nonprofessional, international fellowship for people who have had a drinking problem, is approaching 79 years of existence. This morning, Keith Humphreys, PhD, a Stanford addiction expert, writes in Washington Post's Wonkblog about how medical experts have viewed the organization during its tenure and what can be made of results from studies measuring AA's effectiveness.
From the piece:
For most of the 12-step fellowship’s existence, professionals in the addiction field held widely varying opinions of its value. Some praised AA as an extremely valuable resource for people seeking recovery, but others viewed it as unsophisticated folk medicine and even a bit cultish. Other tensions emerged from turf issues: Medical professionals can be dismissive of – at times even hostile to – those they consider well-intentioned amateurs. Just as some obstetricians resent midwives, some addiction treatment professionals looked down on the non-professional AA members in their midst.
Humphreys notes that results from Project MATCH, the largest study of alcohol-dependence treatment, and a subsequent randomized clinical trial have changed some skeptics' minds. More from the piece:
Studies such as these dramatically reduced the ranks of AA critics among scientists. AA’s value is still questioned in a few quarters, but as Harvard Professor of Psychiatry John Kelly [PhD] notes, this is becoming less true as the years go by: “The stronger scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of AA is relatively new. It takes time for evidence to disseminate into clinical practice as well as into broader society.”
Previously: What’s the best way to handle the chronically intoxicated?, Examining how addiction in the U.S. has changed over the last decade and A discussion of the history and effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous
Photo by Kristin Charles-Scaringi
