3.8 Article

Long-term outcomes of alcohol use disorders: Comparing untreated individuals with those in alcoholics anonymous and formal treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 529-540

出版社

ALCOHOL RES DOCUMENTATION INC CENT ALCOHOL STUD RUTGERS UNIV
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.529

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [AA02863, AA06699] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine how the type and timing of help received over 8 years by previously untreated problem drinking individuals were Linked to drinking and functioning outcomes. Method: Ar the time of the 8-year follow-up, individuals (N = 466, 51% male) had self-selected into four groups: no treatment (n = 78), Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) only (n = 66), formal treatment only (n = 74). or formal treatment plus AA (n = 248). Results: Individuals who received some type of help-AA, formal treatment or both-were more likely ro be abstinent at 8 years than were untreated individuals. Although the AA only group was better off than the formal treatment only group at 1 and 3 years, the informally and formally treated groups were equivalent on drinking outcomes at 8 years. Similarly, despite the formal treatment plus AA group having been better off at 1 and 3 years than the formal treatment only group, the two formal treatment groups were comparable on drinking at 8 years. Both helped and untreated individuals improved between baseline and 1 year on drinking outcomes, but only formally treated individuals showed continued improvement over 8 years on drinking indices. Participation in AA or formal treatment during Year 1 of follow-up was associated with better drinking outcomes at 8 years. Conclusions: Individuals who obtain help for a drinking problem, especially relatively quickly, do somewhat better on drinking outcomes over 8 years than those who do not receive help, but there is little difference between types of help on long-term drinking outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据