Mutual aid effectiveness
selected research articles
Research into mutual aid groups is necessarily limited because it is in the nature of these groups to place a high value on privacy and confidentiality. However, sometimes attendance at mutual aid meetings is accounted for in addiction outcomes research and sometimes groups are amenable to direct evaluation. It is also possible to collect qualitative data from people who are members of mutual aid groups.
12-step facilitation
When evaluated against other addiction treatments, attending 12-step meetings or 12-step facilitation is equally effective. It is usual to find equivalence between effective treatments, not least because the particular treatment plays a small part in the outcome. Most important to outcome is the person’s social capital before starting treatment and, if a practitioner is involved, are they effective?
Project MATCH in the USA was a large trial of addiction treatments. Twelve Step Facilitation did significantly better than both CBT and Motivational Enhancement on continuous abstinence, which is an exacting outcome measure…
For those not continuously abstinent MATCH treatments still delivered excellent results: days abstinent at the end of treatment for TSF 87%, CBT 85%, MET 77% (TSF & CBT 12 sessions, MET 4 sessions).
The best results for practitioners come from taking a structured approach to 12-step programmes (see the TSF manual above) rather than simply encouraging attendance. There are no charges for attending 12-step meetings and so cost effectiveness tends to be favourable. 12-steps can be mixed with other treatments provided there is no conflict with the goal of abstinence.
Project MATCH was supported and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and has made their Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF) manual available to practitioners.
