A longitudinal study of the comparative efficacy of Women for Sobriety, LifeRing, SMART Recovery, and 12-step groups for those with AUD

Levels and outcomes of 12-step participation among sexual and gender minority subgroups

INTRODUCTION

Sexual minority (e.g., bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer) and gender minority (e.g., transgender, non-binary, gender expansive) individuals (SGMI) experience higher rates of alcohol and other substance use disorders than their heterosexual and cisgender (i.e., non-transgender) counterparts. 12-Step programs are currently the most common source of support for alcohol and other substance use-related problems in the United States. Little is known about rates and levels of participation and outcomes of SGMI in 12-Step programs. Examining SGMI with a lifetime alcohol or other substance use disorder, this study aims to: 1) describe lifetime attendance rates (any vs. none) and levels of participation (number of program activities) in 12-Step groups among SGMI overall and compare rates of attendance and levels of participation across sexual and gender minority identities and 2) determine how lifetime level of participation in 12-Step programs relates to past-year alcohol and other substance use outcomes.

METHODS

We used data collected through The PRIDE Study, a national, large-scale, longitudinal health study of adult SGMI, administering supplemental questions to assess alcohol and other substance use disorders and 12-step participation. Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial models (N = 1353) run with sexual and gender identities as predictors of lifetime 12-step attendance (yes/no) and level of 12-Step participation determine if greater levels of 12-Step participation were associated with lower levels of past-year Alcohol and Substance Use Disorder (AUD & SUD) symptoms. The study ran models for those with lifetime AUD (n = 1074) and SUD (n = 659) separately.

RESULTS

Participants who engaged in greater levels of 12-Step participation had lower levels of past-year AUD and SUD symptoms. Gay and queer respondents with AUD were more likely and lesbian respondents with SUD were less likely than other participants to have ever participated in 12-Step programs. All other associations between sexual/gender identities and 12-Step participation disappeared when age was added to the model.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides preliminary evidence that 12-Step participation may be an effective resource for reducing AUD and SUD symptoms among SGMI. Younger SGMI and SGMI holding sexual/gender identities other than gay and queer may require additional support to initiate participation in 12-Step programs.

Mode of mutual-help group attendance: Predictors and outcomes in a US national longitudinal survey of adults with lifetime alcohol use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Although attending substance use-focused mutual-help meetings online may reduce attendance barriers, associations of attendance mode with group participation and outcomes are unknown. Using longitudinal data from mutual-help group attendees, this study, after identifying differences in baseline characteristics by attendance mode, examined associations of attendance mode with mutual-help participation (number of meetings attended, involvement) and outcomes (alcohol abstinence, heavy drinking, alcohol problems).

METHODS

The Peer Alternatives for Addiction Study 2021 Cohort sampled attendees of 12-step groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), Women for Sobriety, LifeRing Secular Recovery, and/or SMART Recovery in-person and/or online within 30 days before baseline. The baseline sample, recruited in fall 2021, was 531 adults with lifetime alcohol use disorder, followed at 6 (88 %) and 12 months (85 %). Differences in baseline characteristics by attendance mode were tested using Chi-squares and ANOVAs. GEE models examined associations of attendance mode, time, and their interactions with mutual-help group participation and alcohol outcomes. The in-person only mode was compared to the online-only, and to the in-person plus online, modes.

RESULTS

At baseline, 53.7 % of participants had attended only online meetings in the past 30 days, 33.7 % had attended both in-person and online meetings, and 12.6 % had attended only in-person meetings. Online meeting attendees were less likely to endorse lifetime abstinence as an alcohol recovery goal than in-person-only meeting attendees. In adjusted models (including for recovery goal), those attending online meetings only, or both online and in-person meetings, attended a greater number of meetings compared to those attending only in-person meetings. However, online-only attendance was associated with less involvement than in-person-only attendance. In adjusted models, compared to baseline, involvement increased and outcomes improved at follow-ups. Adjusted models examining alcohol outcomes found that no attendance at mutual-help groups at follow-ups was associated with more heavy drinking compared to in-person-only attendance.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings inform efforts to ascertain benefits of mutual-help group participation by suggesting that online attendance is associated with attending more meetings, less involvement, and lower endorsement of abstinence as a recovery goal, and is comparable to in-person attendance on alcohol outcomes. In-person attendance may be more beneficial for less heavy drinking than terminating attendance.

The use of online methods to recruit and follow a hard-to-reach population in the Peer Alternatives for Addiction Study 2021 Cohort

BACKGROUND

Although studies are increasingly adopting online protocols, few such studies in the addiction field have comprehensively described their data review procedures and successes in detecting low-quality/fraudulent data. The current study describes data collection protocols and outcomes of a large, longitudinal study (the PAL Study 2021) that implemented online design elements to study individuals seeking peer support for an alcohol use disorder.

METHODS

In 2021, the PAL Study collaborated with mutual-help group (MHG) partners and recovery-related organizations to recruit individuals attending a 12-step group, Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing Secular Recovery, and/or SMART Recovery for an alcohol problem in-person and/or online in the prior 30 days. Participation was solicited both online and in-person. Individuals accessed baseline surveys via an open web link; follow-ups occurred at 6 and 12 months. Analyses included calculating the proportion of surveys eliminated in data quality review; comparing MHG subsamples to internal survey (benchmark) data for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), WFS, LifeRing, and SMART; and examining response rates and attrition.

RESULTS

Although 93% of respondents who opened the baseline survey completed it, 87% of baseline surveys were eliminated in data quality review (final N = 531). Nonetheless, cleaned MHG subsamples were generally similar to benchmark samples on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education. Follow-up rates for the cleaned sample were 88% (6 months) and 85% (12 months). Analyses revealed some differences in attrition by gender, primary MHG, and lifetime drug problems, but there was no evidence of greater attrition among those in earlier/less stable recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Study methods appear to have produced a valid, largely representative sample of the hard-to-reach target population that was successfully followed across 12 months. However, given the high survey elimination rate and need for extensive data review, we recommend that researchers avoid open-link designs and include comprehensive data review when incorporating online design elements.

A systematic qualitative study investigating why individuals attend, and what they like, dislike, and find most helpful about, smart recovery, alcoholics anonymous, both, or neither

BACKGROUND

Some individuals seeking recovery from alcohol use disorder (AUD) attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) while others choose newer alternatives such as Self-Management and Recovery Training ("SMART" Recovery). Some even attend both, while some choose not to attend either. Little is known about why people choose which pathway(s), and what they like, dislike, and find helpful. Greater knowledge could provide insights into the phenomenology of recovery experiences and enhance the efficiency of clinical linkage to these resources.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, qualitative, investigation (N = 80; n = 20 per condition; 50%female) of individuals attending either AA-only, SMART-only, both, or neither. Participants were asked why they initially chose that pathway, what they like and dislike, and what helps. Responses were coded using an inductive grounded theory approach with utterances recorded and categorized into superordinate domains and rank-ordered in terms of frequency across each question and recovery pathway.

RESULTS

AA participants reported attending due to, as well as liking and finding most helpful, the common socio-community aspects, whereas SMART attendees went initially due to, as well as found most helpful, the different format as well as the CBT/science-based approach. Similar to AA, however, SMART participants liked the socio-community aspects most. "Both" participants reported liking and finding helpful these perceived relative strengths of each organization. "Neither" participants reported reasons for non-attendance related to lower problem severity - perceiving no need to attend, and anxiety about privacy, but reported using recovery-related change strategies similar to those prescribed by AA, SMART and treatment (e.g., stimulus control, competing behaviors). Common dislikes for AA and SMART centered around irritation due to other members behaviors, a need for more SMART meetings, and negative experiences with SMART facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Common impressions exist among individuals selecting different recovery pathway choices, but also some differences in keeping with the group dynamics and distinct approaches inherent in AA and SMART. AA attendees appear to go initially for the recovery buoyancy derived from the social ethos and camaraderie of lived experience and may end up staying for the same reason; those choosing SMART, in contrast, appear to attend initially for the CBT/science-based content and different approach but, like AA participants, may end up staying due to the same camaraderie of lived experience. Those participating in both AA and SMART appear to capitalize on the strengths of each organization, suggesting that some can psychologically accommodate and make use of theoretically distinct, and sometimes opposing, philosophies and practices.

Prevalence and correlates of 12-step and second-wave mutual-help attendance in a nationally representative US sample

BACKGROUND

Mutual-help organizations (MHOs) are effective community-based, recovery support options for individuals with alcohol and other drug use disorders (i.e., substance use disorder; SUD). Greater understanding of second-wave MHOs, such as SMART Recovery, can help build on existing research that has focused primarily on 12-step MHOs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, to inform scientific, practice, and policy recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the National Recovery Study, a representative sample of US adults who resolved a substance use problem (N = 1984). Using survey-weighted estimates, we examined descriptive statistics for any lifetime, weekly lifetime, and past 90-day MHO attendance; we compared rates of 12-step and second-wave MHO attendance over time by descriptively examining distributions for calendar year of the first meeting attended. We also used two logistic regression models to examine demographic, substance use, clinical, and recovery-related correlates of weekly lifetime attendance separately for 12-step (n = 692) and second-wave MHOs (n = 32).

RESULTS

For any attendance, 41.4% attended a 12-step MHO and 2.9% a second-wave MHO; for weekly attendance, 31.9% attended a 12-step MHO, and 1.7% a second-wave MHO. Two-thirds (64%) of initial second-wave attendance occurred between 2006 and 2017 compared to 22% of initial 12-step attendance during this time frame. Significant correlates of weekly 12-step MHO attendance included histories of SUD treatment and arrest. Significant correlates of weekly second-wave MHO attendance included Black identity (vs. White) and history of SUD medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Attendance at second-wave MHOs is far less common than 12-step MHOs, but appears to be on the rise. Observed correlates of second-wave MHO attendance should be replicated in larger second-wave MHO samples before integrating these findings into best practices. Enhanced linkages from clinical and criminal justice settings to both second-wave and 12-step groups may help to "broaden the base" of MHOs.

Disparities in Alcoholics Anonymous Participation from 2000 to 2020 Among U.S. Residents With an Alcohol Use Disorder in the National Alcohol Survey

OBJECTIVE

Mutual-help groups (MHGs) like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) are effective for resolving alcohol use disorders (AUDs), but few studies have examined disparities in MHG participation, particularly recently. We used five waves of National Alcohol Survey data to investigate whether prevalence of AA attendance among those with a lifetime AUD differed by race/ethnicity, age, and sex, directly testing whether these associations varied with time.

METHOD

Analyses pooled weighted data from 2000 to 2020, including only participants with a lifetime AUD and identifying as non-Hispanic White, Latinx/Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Black/African American (N = 8,876). Logistic regression models examined associations between lifetime AA attendance and survey year, race/ethnicity, age, and sex; models also tested for differences in demographic effects across survey year using interaction terms.

RESULTS

In bivariate models, AA attendance was significantly less prevalent among participants identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White); ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64); and female (vs. male). Survey year was unrelated to AA attendance, and all interactions involving survey year were nonsignificant. In the final multivariate model (which controlled for severity and other help-seeking), disparities persisted for those identifying as Latinx/Hispanic (vs. White; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.63) and ages 18-29 (vs. 30-64; aOR = 0.35); AA attendance was also less prevalent among Black/African American (vs. White) participants (aOR = 0.59), but sex became nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Results replicate and extend sparse findings regarding disparities in MHG attendance and suggest a stagnation in AA's growth and reach to underserved populations. Findings highlight the need to more effectively facilitate MHG attendance (and perhaps broader social network change) among racial/ethnic minorities and emerging adults.

A non-randomized pilot study protocol of a novel social support intervention for individuals in early recovery from hazardous alcohol use

INTRODUCTION

Connecting individuals to recovery support services such as recovery community centers and mutual help organizations can be crucial for sustaining recovery from addiction. However, there may be barriers to engagement with recovery support services on individual (e.g., limited motivation) and structural (e.g., limited information on recovery resources) levels. This pilot study will determine the feasibility and acceptability of a novel online social support intervention (Let's Do Addiction Recovery Together!, abbreviated as LDART) that uses pre-recorded videos created by members from several recovery support services to help individuals in early recovery from hazardous alcohol use sustain motivation during recovery and introduce them to freely available recovery support services in the community.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a non-randomized mixed-method pilot study. We will recruit 30 adults who engaged in past-year hazardous alcohol use and have some desire to cut down or quit to use LDART every night for a month. A subset of these participants will be invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview after completing the study. Primary outcomes will be feasibility parameters such as recruitment and retention rates, and acceptability measures such as frequency of intervention use. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported changes in alcohol use, engagement in recovery support services, and quality of life at one-month post-intervention relative to baseline.

DISCUSSION

Results of this pilot study will inform a randomized controlled trial to examine efficacy of this intervention, with the goal of creating an accessible and scalable intervention that has direct benefits on individuals who want to cut down or quit problematic alcohol use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06022107.

The benefits and challenges of virtual SMART recovery mutual-help groups: Participant and facilitator perspectives

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 prompted widespread transition of face-to-face mutual-help groups to virtual delivery. Current understanding of the experience of virtual mutual-help groups is limited to 12-step approaches or asynchronous groups (e.g., forums). This paper explores participant and facilitator perspectives regarding the benefits and challenges of accessing SMART Recovery mutual-help groups virtually via videoconference.

METHODS

A self-selected convenience sample of participants (n = 29) and facilitators (n = 15) from SMART Recovery mutual-help groups in Australia were enrolled. Participants and facilitators were sampled to reflect experience of virtual groups delivered via videoconference ('online'), face-to-face groups ('face-to-face') or both types of groups ('both'). Telephone qualitative interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using iterative categorisation.

RESULTS

Participant and facilitators discussed their experience across eight interconnected themes benefits were typically discussed with regard to the (1) availability, (2) ease of access and (3) value add of the chat feature in online groups. Challenges largely pertained to (1) in-group engagement, (2) group size, (3) non-verbal cues, (4) social interaction and (5) technology problems. The impact of these challenges on participant and facilitator experience varied, and neither modality was consistently identified as superior.

CONCLUSIONS

SMART Recovery mutual-help groups provided participants with another option for accessing mutual-help and appealed to different people under different circumstances. Depending on the needs and preferences of the individual, online SMART Recovery mutual-help groups may help to mitigate a range of barriers to help seeking and may also engage people otherwise unable or reluctant to engage in treatment. To inform training, practice and policy, improved understanding of the individual and contextual factors that enhance participant engagement, experience and outcomes is needed.

Who affiliates with SMART recovery? A comparison of individuals attending SMART recovery, alcoholics anonymous, both, or neither

BACKGROUND

Mutual-help organizations (MHOs) play a crucial role for many individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) or other substance use disorders in achieving stable remission. While there is now substantial research characterizing who uses 12-step MHOs, very little is known about who becomes affiliated with newer and rapidly growing MHOs, such as Self-Management and Recovery Training ("SMART" Recovery). More research could inform knowledge regarding who may be best engaged by these differing pathways.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of participants (N = 361) with AUD recruited mostly from the community who were starting a new recovery attempt and self-selected into one of four different recovery paths: (1) SMART Recovery ("SMART-only"; n = 75); (2) Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA-only"; n = 73); (3) Both SMART and AA ("Both"; n = 53); and (4) Neither SMART nor AA ("Neither"; n = 160). We compared the groups on demographics, clinical history, treatment and recovery support service use, and indices of functioning and well-being. We computed descriptives and conducted inferential analyses according to the data structure.

RESULTS

Compared to study participants choosing AA-only or Both, SMART-only participants were more likely to be White, married, have higher income and more education, be full-time employed, and evince a pattern of lower clinical severity characterized by less lifetime and recent treatment and recovery support services usage, lower alcohol use intensity and fewer consequences, and less legal involvement. AUD symptom levels, lifetime psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric distress, and functioning were similar across MHO-engaged groups.

CONCLUSION

SMART Recovery appears to attract individuals with greater psychosocial stability and economic advantage and less severe histories of alcohol-related impairment and legal involvement. Findings suggest that certain aspects specific to the SMART Recovery group approach, format, and/or contents may appeal to individuals exhibiting this type of profile. As such, SMART appears to provide an additional resource that expands the repertoire of options for individuals with AUD who seek recovery.

Piloting the integration of SMART Recovery into outpatient alcohol and other drug treatment programs

BACKGROUND

Research suggests peer support groups can amplify and extend treatment effects and enhance long-term recovery from Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) problems. However, they are rarely integrated into outpatient treatment programs, resulting in a missed opportunity for peer-to-peer learning, and increased connection to others social networks where people want to reduce or cease substance use.

METHOD

In this mixed-methods study, we examined the uptake, participant experiences and impacts of Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART) when embedded in three public AOD treatment programs in a pilot program in Australia. Groups were delivered initially in-person but transitioned online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 75 SMART Recovery groups were run by the pilot sites, with an average attendance of 6.5 people per meeting. Among Participants (N = 31) who completed the survey, 94% reported benefits relating to substance use (i.e., reduction/ successful maintenance of abstinence), 71% reported improvements in their mental health and wellbeing, 74% reported improvements in their physical health, and 81% reported feeling better connected with others. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 participants to explore their experiences. Thematic analysis revealed four themes: motivation to attend, active ingredients, views on the integration of SMART into formal AOD, and the advantages and disadvantages of online groups.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, these findings suggest embedding SMART Recovery in AOD treatment is a worthwhile endeavour. This was indicated by a good uptake and evidence of multiple and unique benefits to participants over and above their usual care, notably, better management of their AOD use, health, wellbeing, and sense of connection with others.

Patient-Concerned Other Dyads' 12-Step Involvement and Patients' Substance Use: A Latent Class Growth Model Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to inform clinical practice by identifying subgroups of patient-concerned other (CO) dyads. Patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) were characterized on Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) involvement and substance use together with COs' Al-Anon involvement. Predictors and recovery maintenance outcomes of subgroup membership were examined.

METHOD

Participants were 279 patient-CO dyads. Patients were in residential treatment for AUD. Parallel latent class growth model analysis characterized 12-step involvement and substance use at treatment entry and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

Three classes were as follows: 38% Low AA/Low Al-Anon (patients' low AA and COs' low Al-Anon involvement, and patients' high-to-moderate substance use), 10% High AA/High Al-Anon (patients' high AA and COs' high Al-Anon involvement, and patients' moderate-to-low substance use), and 52% High AA/Low Al-Anon (patients' high AA and COs' low Al-Anon involvement, and patients' moderate-to-low substance use). At follow-up, the Low AA/Low Al-Anon classes' patients were less likely to have spirituality as recovery support, confidence about staying abstinent, and satisfaction with recovery progress. The High AA classes' COs had less concern about patients' drinking and scored higher on positive aspects of relationships with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should encourage patients' and COs' 12-step group involvement (12-step practices' engagement). Among patients treated for AUD, AA involvement was related to better outcomes, and to COs' lessened concern about the patients' drinking. COs' Al-Anon involvement was associated with having a more positive view of their relationship with the patient. That more than one third of dyads had low 12-step group involvement suggests that treatment programs may need to facilitate involvement in non-12-step mutual-help groups.

An investigation of SMART Recovery: protocol for a longitudinal cohort study of individuals making a new recovery attempt from alcohol use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) remains one of the most pervasive of all psychiatric illnesses conferring a massive health and economic burden. In addition to professional treatments to address AUD, mutual-help organisations such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and newer entities like Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) play increasingly important roles in many societies. While much is known about the positive effects of AA, very little is known about SMART. Hence, this study seeks to estimate real-world patterns of utilisation and benefit from SMART Recovery as well as explore for whom (moderators) and how (mechanisms) SMART confers recovery benefits.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Naturalistic, longitudinal, cohort study (n=368) of individuals with AUD recruited between February 2019 and February 2022, initiating a new recovery attempt who self-select into one of four groups at study entry: (1) SMART Recovery; (2) AA; (3) SMART+AA; (4) Neither SMART nor AA; (stratified by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM 5) severity markers), with assessments conducted at intake, and 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months. Primary outcomes are: frequency of SMART and AA meetings attendance; per cent days abstinent and per cent days heavy drinking. Secondary outcomes include psychiatric distress; quality of life and functioning. Moderator variables include sex/gender; race/ethnicity; spirituality. Mediational variables include social networks; coping skills; self-efficacy; impulsivity. Multivariable regression with propensity score matching will test for patterns of attendance and effects of participation over time on outcomes and test for mechanisms and moderators.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study involves human participants and was approved by the Massachusetts General Hospital Institutional Review Board (Protocol #: 2017P002029/PHS). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

REGISTRATION

This is a non-randomised, naturalistic, longitudinal, cohort study, and thus was not registered in advance. Results, therefore, should be considered exploratory.

Understanding the social and community support experiences of sexual and gender minority individuals in 12-Step programs

Sexual and gender minority individuals (e.g., gay, bisexual, non-binary, transgender; SGMI) are 2-6 times as likely as cisgender heterosexual individuals to experience alcohol or other substance use disorders. SGMI participate in 12-Step groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), at high rates. Though social support is an established mechanism through which 12-Step programs support reductions in substance use, little is known about SGMI's experiences of the social support in 12-Step programs. This qualitative study aims to understand the experiences of social and community support among SGMI involved in 12-Step programs. This study employed thematic analysis to interpret open-ended responses from 302 SGMI who had participated in 12-Step programs. Data was from The PRIDE Study, a large, national, online. longitudinal, cohort study of SGMI. Two themes emerged about how SGMI experienced social and community support in 12-Step programs: beneficial connections and harmful environments. Beneficial connections included a sense of community, shared experiences, and skills provision. Harmful environments included marginalization, oppression, violence, and bullying. This study highlights the variability of experiences of SGMI participating in 12-Step programs. These findings suggest that many SGMI may benefit from 12-Step programs but may need support in coping with potential harms that can emerge through participation.

Role of Peer Coaches in Digital Interventions for MOUD Initiation and Maintenance

Millions of Americans suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD) in the United States, resulting in thousands of deaths. The ongoing opioid crisis necessitates novel approaches to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with misusing opioids. Studies using peer support models show success in engaging persons living with OUD in initiating treatment and decreasing relapse. Although most studies have focused on patients in clinical settings, community studies integrating peer community leaders also show promise. This viewpoint paper explores the use of peer coaches in online interventions in the community setting.

Exploring Whether Addictions Counselors Recommend That Their Patients Use Websites, Smartphone Apps, or Other Digital Health Tools to Help Them in Their Recovery: Web-Based Survey

Background

Hundreds of smartphone apps or websites claiming to help those with addictions are available, but few have been tested for efficacy in changing clinically relevant addictions outcomes. Although most of these products are designed for self-facilitation by users struggling with addictions, counselors and other addictions treatment providers will likely play a critical role in facilitating adoption by integrating their use into counseling or recommending them to their patients. Yet, few studies have explored the practices of addictions counselors in using or recommending addictions-focused digital health tools in their work.

Objective

The aim of this study was to understand whether addiction counselors are recommending that their patients use addictions-focused apps to help them in their recovery, and the factors that affect their desire to do so.

Methods

Licensed addiction counselors practicing in the United States (N=112) were recruited from professional and scientific organizations of alcohol or drug counselors to complete a web-based survey.

Results

In total, 74% (83/112) of counselors had recommended that their patients use a website or smartphone app to assist them in recovery, and those that had done so reported recommending an app with an average of 54% of their patients. The most commonly recommended app or website was SMARTRecovery.org (9%), I am Sober (8%), In the Rooms (7%), Insight Timer (4%), Calm (4%), Sober Tool (4%), Recovery Box (3%), and Sober Grid (3%). The most important reason that counselors recommended the websites or apps was that colleagues or patients told them they found it helpful (55%), followed by their workplaces recommending it (20%) and professional organizations recommending it (10%). Counselors’ intentions to recommend a hypothetical app were strongest for apps that had been tested in rigorous, scientific studies that showed they helped users stay sober or reduce their substance use; 94% (105/112) reported that they would “definitely” or “probably” use such an app.

Conclusions

Most addictions counselors surveyed are already recommending that their patients use apps or websites to help them in their recovery, despite the paucity of available products that have evidence supporting their efficacy for addictions outcomes. One way that product developers could increase adoption among addictions treatment providers is to make efficacy testing a priority and to disseminate results through professional organizations and clinics.

Mutual-help group participation for substance use problems in the US: Correlates and trends from 2002 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Mutual-help groups (MHGs) are an integral component of the substance use disorder (SUD) treatment system in the U.S., and growing evidence suggests that they are effective and cost-effective for SUD-related problems. However, not much is known about the MHG participation patterns in the U.S.

METHODS

Using the 2002-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data, we estimated the annual participation rates and examined the psycho-social-behavioral correlates of MHG participation using logistic regression.

RESULTS

There was no significant linear trend of MHG participation in the total US adult population between 2002 and 2018 (AOR = 0.999, 95% CI = 0.991-1.007). Among adults with past-year SUD, 4.8-7.4% of men and 4.4-6.7% of women participated in MHGs. MHG participants were more likely to be middle-aged (vs. young adults), lower education (less than high school, high school, some college vs. college or higher), lower income (annual household income <$20,000, $20,000-39,999 vs. $75,000 + ), be unemployed or not in the labor force (vs. employed), and were less likely to be Black/African American (vs. White American) and have lower English proficiency (speak English not well/not at all vs. very well/well),.

CONCLUSION

MHG participation rates have remained relatively stable over the past two decades. MHGs were utilized more by individuals with lower socioeconomic status indicators and more criminal/legal involvement, possibly due to MHGs' free accessibility. However, research is needed to understand why young adults, Black, and individuals with lower English proficiency are somewhat less likely to attend MHGs.

Review of Evidence-Based Strategies to Treat Alcohol Use Disorder

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a serious, prevalent disorder that affects millions of people. There are numerous evidence-based treatments and strategies to treat AUD, but they are under-utilized for a variety of reasons, including provider stigma, lack of knowledge, lack of professional support, shortage of willing providers, and patient barriers. Disulfiram, naltrexone, and acamprosate are approved but underused medications for the treatment of AUD. Nonpharmacological strategies and treatments include the use of motivational interviewing when talking to patients about their alcohol use, peer support or mutual help groups, and individualized therapy. Nurses are in a prime position to educate themselves and patients on evidence-based treatments for AUD and to help patients access those treatments. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 59(12), 7-11.].

New Australian guidelines for the treatment of alcohol problems: an overview of recommendations

OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 2: Screening and assessment for unhealthy alcohol use Screening Screening for unhealthy alcohol use and appropriate interventions should be implemented in general practice (Level A), hospitals (Level B), emergency departments and community health and welfare settings (Level C). Quantity-frequency measures can detect consumption that exceeds levels in the current Australian guidelines (Level B). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most effective screening tool and is recommended for use in primary care and hospital settings. For screening in the general community, the AUDIT-C is a suitable alternative (Level A). Indirect biological markers should be used as an adjunct to screening (Level A), and direct measures of alcohol in breath and/or blood can be useful markers of recent use (Level B). Assessment Assessment should include evaluation of alcohol use and its effects, physical examination, clinical investigations and collateral history taking (Level C). Assessment for alcohol-related physical problems, mental health problems and social support should be undertaken routinely (GPP). Where there are concerns regarding the safety of the patient or others, specialist consultation is recommended (Level C). Assessment should lead to a clear, mutually acceptable treatment plan which specifies interventions to meet the patient's needs (Level D). Sustained abstinence is the optimal outcome for most patients with alcohol dependence (Level C). Chapter 3: Caring for and managing patients with alcohol problems: interventions, treatments, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up Brief interventions Brief motivational interviewing interventions are more effective than no treatment for people who consume alcohol at risky levels (Level A). Their effectiveness compared with standard care or alternative psychosocial interventions varies by treatment setting. They are most effective in primary care settings (Level A). Psychosocial interventions Cognitive behaviour therapy should be a first-line psychosocial intervention for alcohol dependence. Its clinical benefit is enhanced when it is combined with pharmacotherapy for alcohol dependence or an additional psychosocial intervention (eg, motivational interviewing) (Level A). Motivational interviewing is effective in the short term and in patients with less severe alcohol dependence (Level A). Residential rehabilitation may be of benefit to patients who have moderate-to-severe alcohol dependence and require a structured residential treatment setting (Level D). Alcohol withdrawal management Most cases of withdrawal can be managed in an ambulatory setting with appropriate support (Level B). Tapering diazepam regimens (Level A) with daily staged supply from a pharmacy or clinic are recommended (GPP). Pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence Acamprosate is recommended to help maintain abstinence from alcohol (Level A). Naltrexone is recommended for prevention of relapse to heavy drinking (Level A). Disulfiram is only recommended in close supervision settings where patients are motivated for abstinence (Level A). Some evidence for off-label therapies baclofen and topiramate exists, but their side effect profiles are complex and neither should be a first-line medication (Level B). Peer support programs Peer-led support programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery are effective at maintaining abstinence or reductions in drinking (Level A). Relapse prevention, aftercare and long-term follow-up Return to problematic drinking is common and aftercare should focus on addressing factors that contribute to relapse (GPP). A harm-minimisation approach should be considered for patients who are unable to reduce their drinking (GPP). Chapter 4: Providing appropriate treatment and care to people with alcohol problems: a summary for key specific populations Gender-specific issues Screen women and men for domestic abuse (Level C). Consider child protection assessments for caregivers with alcohol use disorder (GPP). Explore contraceptive options with women of reproductive age who regularly consume alcohol (Level B). Pregnant and breastfeeding women Advise pregnant and breastfeeding women that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption (Level B). Pregnant women who are alcohol dependent should be admitted to hospital for treatment in an appropriate maternity unit that has an addiction specialist (GPP). Young people Perform a comprehensive HEEADSSS assessment for young people with alcohol problems (Level B). Treatment should focus on tangible benefits of reducing drinking through psychotherapy and engagement of family and peer networks (Level B). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Collaborate with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander health workers, organisations and communities, and seek guidance on patient engagement approaches (GPP). Use validated screening tools and consider integrated mainstream and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander-specific approaches to care (Level B). Culturally and linguistically diverse groups Use an appropriate method, such as the "teach-back" technique, to assess the need for language and health literacy support (Level C). Engage with culture-specific agencies as this can improve treatment access and success (Level C). Sexually diverse and gender diverse populations Be mindful that sexually diverse and gender diverse populations experience lower levels of satisfaction, connection and treatment completion (Level C). Seek to incorporate LGBTQ-specific treatment and agencies (Level C). Older people All new patients aged over 50 years should be screened for harmful alcohol use (Level D). Consider alcohol as a possible cause for older patients presenting with unexplained physical or psychological symptoms (Level D). Consider shorter acting benzodiazepines for withdrawal management (Level D). Cognitive impairment Cognitive impairment may impair engagement with treatment (Level A). Perform cognitive screening for patients who have alcohol problems and refer them for neuropsychological assessment if significant impairment is suspected (Level A).

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 5: Understanding and managing comorbidities for people with alcohol problems: polydrug use and dependence, co-occurring mental disorders, and physical comorbidities Polydrug use and dependence Active alcohol use disorder, including dependence, significantly increases the risk of overdose associated with the administration of opioid drugs. Specialist advice is recommended before treatment of people dependent on both alcohol and opioid drugs (GPP). Older patients requiring management of alcohol withdrawal should have their use of pharmaceutical medications reviewed, given the prevalence of polypharmacy in this age group (GPP). Smoking cessation can be undertaken in patients with alcohol dependence and/or polydrug use problems; some evidence suggests varenicline may help support reduction of both tobacco and alcohol consumption (Level C). Co-occurring mental disorders More intensive interventions are needed for people with comorbid conditions, as this population tends to have more severe problems and carries a worse prognosis than those with single pathology (GPP). The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10 or K6) is recommended for screening for comorbid mental disorders in people presenting for alcohol use disorders (Level A). People with alcohol use disorder and comorbid mental disorders should be offered treatment for both disorders; care should be taken to coordinate intervention (Level C). Physical comorbidities Patients should be advised that alcohol use has no beneficial health effects. There is no clear risk-free threshold for alcohol intake. The safe dose for alcohol intake is dependent on many factors such as underlying liver disease, comorbidities, age and sex (Level A). In patients with alcohol use disorder, early recognition of the risk for liver cirrhosis is critical. Patients with cirrhosis should abstain from alcohol and should be offered referral to a hepatologist for liver disease management and to an addiction physician for management of alcohol use disorder (Level A). Alcohol abstinence reduces the risk of cancer and improves outcomes after a diagnosis of cancer (Level A).

College programming for students in addiction recovery: A PRISMA-guided scoping review

BACKGROUND

The health and well-being of students in recovery from substance use disorder are increasingly being recognized as a priority on college campuses. This scoping review maps the state of the existing literature evaluating collegiate recovery programming to highlight research gaps and inform policy.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic search of articles related to collegiate recovery programming published before August 2020. The 15 extracted study characteristics included publication type, study design, primary outcomes, reporting of behavioral addictions, mutual-help group attendance, sample demographic information, school size, ownership, and funding source.

RESULTS

The PRISMA-guided search strategy identified 357 articles for abstract review; of 113 articles retained for full-text review, 54 studies met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were coded into four domains: clinical, recovery experience, program characterization, and stigma. Most (57%) used quantitative observational designs and 41% employed qualitative research designs. Government or foundation grants funded 11% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The domains identified offer a framework for healthcare providers, college administrators, and researchers to understand and improve programs, thereby better serving this vulnerable student group.

Peer-based recovery support services delivered at recovery community organizations: Predictors of improvements in individual recovery capital

BACKGROUND

While clinical interventions used to support the recovery process of U.S. adults are well understood, community-based solutions such as peer-based recovery support services delivered by a recovery community organization are not.

METHODS

Previously collected administrative data of 3459 participants at 20 recovery community organizations in the U.S. were analyzed using a paired samples t-test to examine intake and current recovery capital differences, and multiple linear regression models to examine the association between peer-based recovery support engagement on changes in recovery capital.

RESULTS

Participants were mostly male (52.1%), non-Hispanic (80.2%), White (75.5%), with an average age of 39.38 years (SD = 12.57). Participants' average engagement was 130.68 days (SD = 166.6) with a total of 4290 engagement sessions (M = 4.75, SD = 4.74) and 8913 brief check-ins (M = 5.0, SD = 5.03) facilitated. Reported health events were 0.09 recurrences of substance use (SD = 0.61) and 0.02 emergency room visits (SD = 0.26) on average. Paired sample t-test results showed a statistically significant increase in recovery capital of 1.33 points (95% CI: 0.97-1.69). Multiple linear regression models for predicting improvements in recovery capital (adjusted r² = 0.61) found number of follow-up engagements and completed recovery plan goals were statistically significant predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-based recovery support services delivered by recovery community organizations assist in significantly improving individual recovery capital, as well as helping to facilitate involvement with an array of recovery support services that may contribute to other functional social determinant domain improvements and lower negative health events.

SMART Recovery International and COVID-19: Expanding the reach of mutual support through online groups

Background

Mutual support groups play an extremely important role in providing opportunities for people to engage in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment and support. SMART Recovery groups employ cognitive, behavioural and motivational principles and strategies to offer support for a range of addictive behaviours. COVID-19 fundamentally changed the way that these groups could be delivered.

Methods

A series of online meetings were conducted by the lead author (PK) and the SMART Recovery International Executive Officer (KM), with representatives from the SMART Recovery National Offices in the Ireland (DO), United States (MR), Australia (RM), and Denmark (BSH, DA), and the United Kingdom (AK). The meetings focused on discussing the impacts of COVID-19 on SMART Recovery in each of the regions.

Results

As a result of restrictions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, the vast majority of SMART Recovery face-to-face meetings were required to cease globally. To ensure people still had access to AOD mutual support, SMART Recovery rapidly scaled up the provision of online groups. This upscaling has increased the number of groups in countries that had previously provided a limited number of online meetings (i.e., United States, England, Australia), and has meant that online groups are available for the first time in Denmark, Ireland, Hong Kong, Spain, Malaysia and Brazil.

Discussion

Whilst the urgent and rapid expansion of online groups was required to support people during the pandemic, it has also created an opportunity for the ongoing availability of online mutual support post-pandemic. The challenge for the research community is to critically evaluate the online delivery of mutual support groups, to better understand the mechanisms through which they may work, and to help understand the experience of people accessing the groups.

Stigmatization of medications for opioid use disorder in 12-step support groups and participant responses

Background: 12-step groups are the most common approach to managing opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are the most effective tool for preventing opioid misuse and relapse. Previous research has identified stigma of MOUD in 12-step groups. Objectives: We sought to identify how MOUD stigma is operationalized in 12-step groups and to identify responses to stigma. Methods: We recruited individuals with both MOUD experience and 12-step group experience from three syringe exchange programs in the U.S. using snowball sampling. We conducted individual telephone semi-structured interviews during 2018 and 2019. We coded data in Dedoose software and conducted thematic analysis using iterative categorization. Results: We recruited 30 individuals meeting our inclusion criteria. The following stigma operationalization methods were identified: prohibiting people using MOUD from speaking at meetings; encouraging shortened duration of MOUD treatment; refusing to sponsor people using MOUD; and refusing to let people using MOUD claim recovery time. Responses to stigma included the following: feeling shame; feeling anger; shopping around for different groups, leaving the group, or forming a new group; not revealing MOUD utilization or only telling a sponsor; speaking out on behalf of MOUD; and using cognitive approaches to avoid stigma internalization. Cognitive approaches included believing that anti-MOUD stigma is contrary to 12-step principles; disregarding statements as inaccurate based on one's experience of MOUD benefits; and accepting that all groups of humans have some ignorant people. Conclusion: Healthcare systems should help address MOUD stigma experienced by patients in 12-step groups, such as by offering non-12-step alternative groups and encouraging MOUD healthcare providers to prepare patients for potential stigma they may face. Some stigma response options, like shopping around for different groups, may not be feasible in rural areas or for participants newer to recovery.

Can Individuals With Alcohol Use Disorder Sustain Non-abstinent Recovery? Non-abstinent Outcomes 10 Years After Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Four decades ago, the "controlled drinking" controversy roiled the alcohol field. Data have subsequently accumulated indicating that nonabstinent alcohol use disorder (AUD) recovery is achievable, but questions remain whether it is sustainable long-term. This study examined whether nonabstinent recovery at 3 years after AUD treatment is associated with better functioning at 10 years after treatment.

METHODS

Data were from the 10-year follow-up of Project MATCH (New Mexico site only, n  = 146; 30.1% female, 58.6% non-White). Recovery was defined by latent profile analyses based on psychosocial functioning and alcohol consumption 3 years after treatment. Drinking practices and consequences, depression, purpose in life, and anger were assessed 10 years after treatment. Distal outcome analyses examined differences in drinking and functional outcomes at 10 years as a function of the 3-year latent profiles. Analyses were preregistered at https://osf.io/3hbxr.

RESULTS

Four latent profiles identified at 3 years after treatment (ie, low functioning frequent heavy drinkers, low functioning infrequent heavy drinkers, high functioning heavy drinkers, and high functioning infrequent nonheavy drinkers) were significantly associated with outcomes 10 years after treatment. The 2 high functioning profiles at 3 years had the highest level of psychological functioning at 10 years posttreatment, regardless of alcohol consumption level. Abstinence at 3 years did not predict better psychological functioning at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonabstinent AUD recovery is possible and is sustainable for up to 10 years after treatment. The current findings align with recent proposals to move beyond relying on alcohol consumption as a central defining feature of AUD recovery.

Identification of Quantifiable Predictors of Relapse in Patients with Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease

Abstinence in patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) reduces mortality. Most predictors of relapse are not quantifiable, preventing objective analysis of relapse risk and targeted intervention to improve clinical outcomes. We prospectively enrolled patients with ALD from November 2016 to December 2019 and administered a survey with two previously published scales to assess insight into alcohol-use disorder (Hanil Alcohol Insight Scale [HAIS]) and social support (Community Assessment Inventory Scale [CAIS]). Relapse was assessed using surveys and metabolite testing. Unadjusted and prespecified adjusted regression analyses identified predictors of relapse. We enrolled 81% of eligible patients (n = 136), of whom 58 had follow-up data available at the time of analysis. Over a median follow-up of 1 year (interquartile range: 0.5-1.4), 10 patients relapsed (17%). Patients who relapsed were more likely to continue drinking despite either a diagnosis of liver disease or a decompensating event, and were less likely to have been transplanted (all P < 0.05). In unadjusted regression, the HAIS and the "support inside the home" subcategory of the CAIS were predictive of relapse, with odds ratio (OR) = 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.97) and 0.85 (0.74-0.97). In adjusted regression, the HAIS was no longer significant, with adjusted OR = 0.70 (0.49-1.00, P = 0.05), whereas the "support inside the home' subcategory of CAIS remained significant, with adjusted OR = 0.69 (0.51-0.92, P = 0.01). Conclusions: Risk factors for relapse in patients with ALD were identified and quantified prospectively, suggesting opportunities to objectively identify patients at risk for relapse as well as to intervene to prevent relapse.

Reasons to be cheerful: Personal, civic, and economic achievements after resolving an alcohol or drug problem in the United States population

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol and other drug (AOD) use disorders impose a prodigious personal and societal burden. While most remit, little is known about the achievements accrued as people accomplish and sustain addiction recovery. Greater knowledge regarding the nature and prevalence of such achievements, when such achievements occur, what factors influence accrual of achievements, and how such achievements relate to other indices of functioning would support treatment and policy planning, and may instill hope for individuals and families seeking AOD problem resolution.

METHODS

Nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of United States (US) population of persons who have overcome an AOD problem (N = 2,002), assessing individual factors and achievements in 4 domains: self-improvement; family engagement; civic, and economic participation. Logistic and linear regression models tested theorized associations among variables.

RESULTS

Most (80.1%) achieved at least one achievement associated with the 4 domains. A linear monotonic relationship was observed with greater achievements accruing with greater time in recovery. Accrual of achievements after AOD problem resolution was related to racial minority status, more education, earlier age of substance use initiation, illicit drugs as primary substance used, more years since resolving AOD problem, more psychiatric diagnoses, lower psychological distress, and regular 12-step program attendance. Multiple regression analyses found greater total achievements were independently associated with greater self-esteem, happiness, quality of life, and recovery capital.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals achieve an increasing number of achievements with time since AOD problem resolution, and these are associated with gains in measures of well-being that may support ongoing AOD problem remission, and recovery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Helping Clients Engage With Remote Mutual Aid for Addiction Recovery During COVID-19 and Beyond

Face-to-face mutual-aid meetings such as Alcoholics Anonymous shuttered with the onset of COVID-19. Research could not be conducted quickly enough to provide guidance for how to respond. However, two powerful tools could be leveraged: the research on mutual aid conducted before the pandemic and the vast number of virtual resources that proliferated with the onset of the pandemic. This article reviews the existing mutual aid research and its relevance to COVID-19, describes the diverse array of virtual resources, and provides recommendations for successful engagement with virtual mutual aid during COVID-19 and beyond.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Mutual Help Group Participation for Substance Use Problems

Mutual help groups are a ubiquitous component of the substance abuse treatment system in the United States, showing demonstrated effectiveness as a treatment adjunct; so, it is paramount to understand whether they are as appealing to, and as effective for, racial or ethnic minority groups as they are for Whites. Nonetheless, no known comprehensive reviews have examined whether there are racial/ethnic disparities in mutual help group participation. Accordingly, this study comprehensively reviewed the U.S. literature on racial/ethnic disparities in mutual help participation among adults and adolescents with substance use disorder treatment need. The study identified 19 articles comparing mutual help participation across specific racial/ethnic minority groups and Whites, including eight national epidemiological studies and 11 treatment/community studies. Most compared Latinx and/or Black adults to White adults, and all but two analyzed 12-step participation, with others examining "self-help" attendance. Across studies, racial/ethnic comparisons yielded mostly null (N = 17) and mixed (N = 9) effects, though some findings were consistent with a racial/ethnic disparity (N = 6) or minority advantage (N = 3). Findings were weakly suggestive of disparities for Latinx populations (especially immigrants, women, and adolescents) as well as for Black women and adolescents. Overall, data were sparse, inconsistent, and dated, highlighting the need for additional studies in this area.

Online recovery support meetings can help mitigate the public health consequences of COVID-19 for individuals with substance use disorder

For people with current and remitted substance use disorder (SUD), the COVID-19 pandemic increases risk for symptom exacerbation and relapse through added stressors and reduced service access. In response, mutual-help groups and recovery community organizations have increased access to online recovery support meetings. However, rigorous studies examining online recovery support meeting participation to inform best practices have not yet been conducted. In the absence of such studies, a review of relevant literature, considered in context of potential barriers and drawbacks, suggests the risk-to-benefit ratio is favorable. Particularly given limited in-person SUD service access resulting from COVID-19 precautions, online recovery support meetings may help mitigate a key public health problem during an ongoing, public health pandemic.

Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-Step Facilitation Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers

AIMS

A recently completed Cochrane review assessed the effectiveness and cost-benefits of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and clinically delivered 12-Step Facilitation (TSF) interventions for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This paper summarizes key findings and discusses implications for practice and policy.

METHODS

Cochrane review methods were followed. Searches were conducted across all major databases (e.g. Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception to 2 August 2019 and included non-English language studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experiments that compared AA/TSF with other interventions, such as motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), TSF treatment variants or no treatment, were included. Healthcare cost offset studies were also included. Studies were categorized by design (RCT/quasi-experimental; nonrandomized; economic), degree of manualization (all interventions manualized versus some/none) and comparison intervention type (i.e. whether AA/TSF was compared to an intervention with a different theoretical orientation or an AA/TSF intervention that varied in style or intensity). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effects where possible using standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes (e.g. percent days abstinent (PDA)) and the relative risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies (21 RCTs/quasi-experiments, 5 nonrandomized and 1 purely economic study) containing 10,565 participants were included. AA/TSF interventions performed at least as well as established active comparison treatments (e.g. CBT) on all outcomes except for abstinence where it often outperformed other treatments. AA/TSF also demonstrated higher health care cost savings than other AUD treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

AA/TSF interventions produce similar benefits to other treatments on all drinking-related outcomes except for continuous abstinence and remission, where AA/TSF is superior. AA/TSF also reduces healthcare costs. Clinically implementing one of these proven manualized AA/TSF interventions is likely to enhance outcomes for individuals with AUD while producing health economic benefits.

Online digital recovery support services: An overview of the science and their potential to help individuals with substance use disorder during COVID-19 and beyond

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic and related social distancing public health recommendations will have indirect consequences for individuals with current and remitted substance use disorder (SUD). Not only will stressors increase risk for symptom exacerbation and/or relapse, but individuals will also have limited service access during this critical time. Individuals with SUD are using free, online digital recovery support services (D-RSS) that leverage peer-to-peer connection (i.e., social-online D-RSS) which simultaneously help these individuals to access support and adhere to public health guidelines. Barriers to SUD treatment and recovery support service access, however, are not unique to the COVID-19 epoch. The pandemic creates an opportunity to highlight problems that will persist beyond its immediate effects, and to offer potential solutions that might help address these long-standing, systemic issues. To help providers and other key stakeholders effectively support those interested in, or who might benefit from, participation in free, social-online D-RSS, this review outlines the following: 1) theories of expected therapeutic benefits from, and potential drawbacks of social-online D-RSS participation; 2) a typology that can be used to describe and classify D-RSS; 3) a D-RSS “case study” to illustrate how to apply the theory and typology; 4) what is known empirically about social-online D-RSS; and 5) whether and how to engage individuals with these online resources.

Method

Narrative review combining research and theory on both in-person recovery supports and social-online D-RSS.

Results

Studies examining in-person recovery support services, such as AA and other mutual-help organizations, combined with theory about how social-online D-RSS might confer benefit, suggest these digital supports may engage individuals with SUD and mobilize salutary change in similar ways. While people may use in-person and digital supports simultaneously, when comparing the two modalities, communication science and telemedicine group therapy data suggest that D-RSS may not provide the same magnitude of benefit as in-person services. D-RSS can be classified based on the a) type of service, b) type of platform, c) points of access, and d) organizations responsible for their delivery. Research has not yet rigorously tested the effectiveness of social-online D-RSS specifically, though existing data suggest that those who use these services generally find their participation to be helpful. Content analyses suggest that these services are likely to facilitate social support and unlikely to expose individuals to harmful situations.

Conclusions

When in-person treatment and recovery support services are limited, as is the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, expected therapeutic benefits and emerging data, taken together, suggest providers, mentors, and other community leaders may wish to refer individuals with current and remitted SUD to free, social-online D-RSS. Given the array of available services in the absence of best practice guidelines, we recommend that when making D-RSS referrals, stakeholders familiarize themselves with theorized benefits and drawbacks of participation, use a typology to describe and classify services, and integrate current empirical knowledge, while relying on trusted federal, academic, and national practice organization resource lists.

•

Social-online, digital recovery support services (D-RSS) may address systemic service access barriers highlighted by COVID-19

•

To aid provider and other stakeholder practices, we review relevant D-RSS theory and research

•

Theory suggests D-RSS may mobilize salutary mechanisms of behavior change, though data also point to potential challenges

•

Emerging D-RSS research is promising, though rigorous studies of their effectiveness have not yet been conducted

•

The typology and resource lists from organizations provided here may be used for those who wish to make D-RSS referrals

Providing addiction services during a pandemic: Lessons learned from COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing measures have made in-person mutual help groups inaccessible to many individuals struggling with substance use disorders (SUDs). Prior to the pandemic, stakeholders in our community had sponsored a program to train volunteers to facilitate local Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) groups. As a result, the community established seven weekly SMART Recovery groups, which more than 200 community members attended. In March 2020, the community discontinued these groups due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To provide SMART Recovery during social distancing, we developed a one-on-one phone-in service for people with SUDs and addictions: the SMART Recovery Line (SMARTline). In this paper, we share our experience training volunteers to facilitate SMART Recovery groups and SMARTline. As a result of our experience, we have learned to: (1) establish plans in advance to migrate services from face-to-face settings to remote platforms; (2) consider remote platforms that are easily accessible to the greatest number of individuals; (3) include as many stakeholders in the planning process as possible; (4) consider recruiting volunteers to help in the provision of services, especially since many people want to help fellow community members during crises; and (5) anticipate and prepare for crises well before they occur.

•

People with addictions rely on mutual help groups (e.g., AA, NA, SMART Recovery).

•

We have developed a program to train volunteers to facilitate SMART Recovery groups.

•

SMART Recovery groups were established, but were discontinued due to COVID-19.

•

In response we developed a novel phone adaptation of SMART Recovery (SMARTline).

•

We share recommendations for providing remote addiction services during COVID-19.

"Personal recovery depends on NA unity": an exploratory study on recovery-supportive elements in Narcotics Anonymous Flanders

BACKGROUND

Mutual aid organizations, such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA), can provide support in substance use disorder (SUD) recovery processes. However, research on NA and its recovery-supportive elements is scarce and perspectives of NA-members remain understudied, in particular outside the US. Therefore, this study aims to gain insight into recovery-supportive elements of NA, as experienced by its members.

METHODS

To explore the perspectives on and experiences with recovery-supportive elements in NA, 11 in-depth interviews with NA-members were conducted in Flanders (Belgium). Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using CHIME-D, a personal recovery framework (Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning in life, Empowerment, Difficulties) developed by Leamy and colleagues in 2011.

RESULTS

Various recovery-supportive elements of NA were highlighted, with Connectedness as a key component including opportunities for building up a social network and for providing a safety net or sounding board. Elements that enabled Connectedness were 1) a non-judgemental approach, and 2) mutual understanding through sharing in NA. Other elements of the CHIME-D framework were less frequently mentioned, although these were inextricably linked to Connectedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Connectedness appeared to be the crucial recovery-supportive element in NA, emphasizing the relational character of SUD recovery. Although other elements of the CHIME-D framework were identified, these were closely related to and intertwined with the concept of connectedness.

Functioning of adults in alcohol use disorder treatment: Role of concerned others

OBJECTIVE

This study examined patients in treatment for alcohol use disorders ("Patients") and their "concerned others" (COs-family and friends): (1) Did Patients' functioning differ according to COs' study participation? Among Patients with participating COs, (2) did Patients and COs agree on Patients' functioning, and (3) was Patients' functioning associated with COs' functioning and quality of CO-Patient relationships?

METHOD

Four-hundred and two Patients (mean age = 44, majority white men) and 277 COs (mean age = 52, majority white women) completed validated assessments.

RESULTS

(1) Unexpectedly, Patients who did not identify a CO for potential study participation had more protective factors against future substance use and more readiness to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) than patients who did identify a CO. (2) Patients had higher scores than COs did when rating the Patient's protective factors, viewed the Patient-CO relationship as having more resources and fewer stressors than COs did, and reported fewer incidents of violence toward the CO than the CO did. (3) Patients had higher risk factors scores when their COs binge drank, and the Patient-CO relationship had more stressors and violence. Patients had higher protective factors scores when COs had greater readiness for Al-Anon participation, and Patients had attended more AA meetings, reported more resources in their relationship with their CO, and used more negotiation tactics when in conflict with their CO.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that interventions to improve Patients' functioning should be broadened beyond COs who are spouses or partners, decrease COs' binge drinking, facilitate 12-step participation, decrease relationship stressors and conflict, and increase relationship resources.

Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) confers a prodigious burden of disease, disability, premature mortality, and high economic costs from lost productivity, accidents, violence, incarceration, and increased healthcare utilization. For over 80 years, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has been a widespread AUD recovery organization, with millions of members and treatment free at the point of access, but it is only recently that rigorous research on its effectiveness has been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether peer-led AA and professionally-delivered treatments that facilitate AA involvement (Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF) interventions) achieve important outcomes, specifically: abstinence, reduced drinking intensity, reduced alcohol-related consequences, alcohol addiction severity, and healthcare cost offsets.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 2 August 2019. We searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 15 November 2018. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and bibliographies of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-randomized studies that compared AA or TSF (AA/TSF) with other interventions, such as motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), TSF treatment variants, or no treatment. We also included healthcare cost offset studies. Participants were non-coerced adults with AUD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We categorized studies by: study design (RCT/quasi-RCT; non-randomized; economic); degree of standardized manualization (all interventions manualized versus some/none); and comparison intervention type (i.e. whether AA/TSF was compared to an intervention with a different theoretical orientation or an AA/TSF intervention that varied in style or intensity). For analyses, we followed Cochrane methodology calculating the standard mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables (e.g. percent days abstinent (PDA)) or the relative risk (risk ratios (RRs)) for dichotomous variables. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool effects wherever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies containing 10,565 participants (21 RCTs/quasi-RCTs, 5 non-randomized, and 1 purely economic study). The average age of participants within studies ranged from 34.2 to 51.0 years. AA/TSF was compared with psychological clinical interventions, such as MET and CBT, and other 12-step program variants. We rated selection bias as being at high risk in 11 of the 27 included studies, unclear in three, and as low risk in 13. We rated risk of attrition bias as high risk in nine studies, unclear in 14, and low in four, due to moderate (> 20%) attrition rates in the study overall (8 studies), or in study treatment group (1 study). Risk of bias due to inadequate researcher blinding was high in one study, unclear in 22, and low in four. Risks of bias arising from the remaining domains were predominantly low or unclear. AA/TSF (manualized) compared to treatments with a different theoretical orientation (e.g. CBT) (randomized/quasi-randomized evidence) RCTs comparing manualized AA/TSF to other clinical interventions (e.g. CBT), showed AA/TSF improves rates of continuous abstinence at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.42; 2 studies, 1936 participants; high-certainty evidence). This effect remained consistent at both 24 and 36 months. For percentage days abstinent (PDA), AA/TSF appears to perform as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 3.03, 95% CI -4.36 to 10.43; 4 studies, 1999 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and better at 24 months (MD 12.91, 95% CI 7.55 to 18.29; 2 studies, 302 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 36 months (MD 6.64, 95% CI 1.54 to 11.75; 1 study, 806 participants; low-certainty evidence). For longest period of abstinence (LPA), AA/TSF may perform as well as comparison interventions at six months (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.50; 2 studies, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence). For drinking intensity, AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months, as measured by drinks per drinking day (DDD) (MD -0.17, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.77; 1 study, 1516 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and percentage days heavy drinking (PDHD) (MD -5.51, 95% CI -14.15 to 3.13; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). For alcohol-related consequences, AA/TSF probably performs as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months (MD -2.88, 95% CI -6.81 to 1.04; 3 studies, 1762 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For alcohol addiction severity, one study found evidence of a difference in favor of AA/TSF at 12 months (P < 0.05; low-certainty evidence). AA/TSF (non-manualized) compared to treatments with a different theoretical orientation (e.g. CBT) (randomized/quasi-randomized evidence) For the proportion of participants completely abstinent, non-manualized AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at three to nine months follow-up (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.18; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-manualized AA/TSF may also perform slightly better than other clinical interventions for PDA (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.69; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). For drinking intensity, AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at nine months, as measured by DDD (MD -1.76, 95% CI -2.23 to -1.29; 1 study, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PDHD (MD 2.09, 95% CI -1.24 to 5.42; 1 study, 286 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs comparing non-manualized AA/TSF to other clinical interventions assessed LPA, alcohol-related consequences, or alcohol addiction severity. Cost-effectiveness studies In three studies, AA/TSF had higher healthcare cost savings than outpatient treatment, CBT, and no AA/TSF treatment. The fourth study found that total medical care costs decreased for participants attending CBT, MET, and AA/TSF treatment, but that among participants with worse prognostic characteristics AA/TSF had higher potential cost savings than MET (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that manualized AA/TSF interventions are more effective than other established treatments, such as CBT, for increasing abstinence. Non-manualized AA/TSF may perform as well as these other established treatments. AA/TSF interventions, both manualized and non-manualized, may be at least as effective as other treatments for other alcohol-related outcomes. AA/TSF probably produces substantial healthcare cost savings among people with alcohol use disorder.

Characterization of Service Use for Alcohol Problems Across Generations and Sex in Adults With Alcohol Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

There are gaps in the literature on service use (help-seeking and treatment utilization) for alcohol problems among those with alcohol use disorder (AUD). First, policy changes and cultural shifts (e.g., insurance) related to AUD have occurred over the last few decades, making it important to study generational differences. Second, multiple studies have found that females receive fewer services than males, and exploring whether these sex differences persist across generations can inform public health and research endeavors. The current study examined service use for alcohol problems among individuals with AUD. The aims were as follows: (i) to describe service use for alcohol problems; (ii) to assess generational differences (silent [b. 1928 to 1945], boomer [b. 1946 to 1964], generation X [b. 1965 to 1980], millennial [b. 1981 to 1996]) in help-seeking and treatment utilization; and (iii) to examine sex differences across generations.

METHODS

Data were from affected family members of probands who participated in the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (N = 4,405). First, frequencies for service use variables were calculated across generations. Pearson chi-square and ANOVA were used to test for differences in rates and types of service use across generations, taking familial clustering into account. Next, Cox survival modeling was used to assess associations of generation and sex with time to first help-seeking and first treatment for AUD, and time from first onset of AUD to first help-seeking and first treatment. Interactions between generation and sex were tested within each Cox regression.

RESULTS

Significant hazards were found in all 4 transitions. Overall, younger generations used services earlier than older generations, which translated into higher likelihoods of these behaviors. Regardless of generation, younger females were less likely to use services than males.

CONCLUSIONS

There are generational and sex differences in service use for alcohol problems among individuals with AUD. Policy and clinical implications are discussed.

Ambivalent attendees: Transitions in group affiliation among those who choose a 12-step alternative for addiction

BACKGROUND

Mutual-help alternatives for addiction are numerous, and research attests to the benefits of involvement in such alternatives. Yet, virtually nothing is known about affiliation patterns over time among 12-step alternatives. We investigated the patterns, correlates, and outcomes of transitions in affiliation (including changing groups and dropping out) within alternatives for alcohol problems.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Peer ALternatives for Addiction (PAL) Study, a longitudinal study comparing the nature and effectiveness of 12-step groups, WFS, LifeRing, and SMART (N = 647). First, using all data, we compared affiliation patterns over time across 12-step and 12-step alternative members at baseline. Second, analyzing exclusively 12-step alternative members at baseline, we compared baseline characteristics and 6-month outcomes of those who changed and dropped out of (vs. retained) their primary groups at 6 months.

RESULTS

While drop-out rates were low, and similar, across groups, members of the alternatives were more likely (vs. 12-step) to change groups at 6 months, and transitioned predominantly to 12-step. Further, among the 12-step alternatives, both changing groups and dropping out was associated with lower group cohesion and satisfaction. Meanwhile, in multivariate analyses of 6-month outcomes, changing (vs. retaining) groups robustly predicted lower cohesion, higher negative affect, and lower quality of life, whereas dropping out was associated with lower odds of alcohol abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

While dropping out is known to be risky, changing groups is more common among the 12-step alternatives, and connotes risk of future problems that may be partially explained by dissatisfaction with the new group (usually 12-step).

Reducing harm and promoting recovery through community-based mutual aid: Characterizing those who engage in a hybrid peer recovery community organization

BACKGROUND

Peer-based support services are often used within harm reduction organizations, and more recently within recovery community organizations (RCO). Identifying the characteristics of individuals who engage with these novel RCOs is needed. Additionally, conducting collaborative research with communities of people who use drugs (PWUD) or are in recovery is an effective and rewarding approach that allows individuals to take ownership and play a critical role in the study.

METHODS

This exploratory study employs a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework in partnership with a peer-led hybrid recovery community organization, Rebel Recovery, in Florida. Peer staff participated in all phases of the study, helping to inform the study protocol, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and results write-up. A cross-sectional survey instrument was used to collect consumer intake data. Pearson Chi-square tests and multivariate binomial logistic regressions were used to examine relationships between consumer characteristics and service utilization.

RESULTS

Consumers (n = 396) of Rebel Recovery peer support services had a mean age of 35.60 years (SD = 9.74). Many were experiencing homelessness (35.4%), unemployed (69.7%), high school graduates or GED holders (68.2%) and had a last year income of less than $10,000 (58.3%). The majority were users of heroin primarily (70.7%), with intravenous use being the preferred route of administration (63.9%). Exploratory analysis found that gender, marital status, and involvement in the child welfare system were significantly related to primary substance of use. Past 30-day engagement in recovery meetings had several statistically significant predictors including primary substance of use, age, housing status, annual income level, past-30-day arrests, tobacco use, and alcohol harm perception. Process findings from the CBPR methods used reconfirm the value of including peers in research involving PWUD and individuals in recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that peer-based support services at a hybrid recovery community organization can successfully engage populations that are often underserved (i.e., experiencing homelessness, involved in drug court, intravenous users, etc.). Significant relationships identified in the exploratory analysis suggest that additional education concerning overdose and the potential benefits of recovery meetings may be useful for specific consumers. Additionally, several recommendations and benefits of engaging in community-based participatory research with peer-led organizations are made for future research.

Effects of 12-step mutual support and professional outpatient services on short-term substance use outcomes among adults who received inpatient treatment

BACKGROUND

Continuing care is increasingly prioritized in the treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Ongoing engagement in continuing care, including mutual support (e.g., 12-step groups) and/or professional outpatient services, may enhance treatment outcomes and facilitate recovery.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates how engagement in 12-step mutual support and professional outpatient services is associated with short-term substance use outcomes in a sample of patients who completed inpatient SUDs treatment.

METHODS

As part of the Recovery Journey Project - a longitudinal cohort study - participants completed questionnaires upon admission to an inpatient SUDs treatment program, and at 1- and/or 3-months post-discharge (n = 379). Baseline data were collected by self-administered, electronic questionnaires. Follow up data were collected by phone or email. Analyses involved multivariate Generalized Estimating Equations separately modelling self-reported abstinence and percent days abstinent (PDA) over the three time periods.

RESULTS

Overall, rates of self-reported abstinence and PDA increased significantly from baseline to 1- and 3-months follow up. Engagement in 12-step activities (i.e., attended 30 meetings in 30 days, had a home group, had a sponsor, did service work) and professional outpatient substance use support were each significantly associated with abstinence and PDA. Participants who reported a higher degree of 12-step involvement (defined as engagement in more 12-step activities) were also more likely to report being abstinence and greater PDA.

CONCLUSIONS

Engagement in continuing care, including 12-step activities and professional outpatient substance use support, was highly associated with substance use. Clinical teams should encourage participation in such activities to optimize treatment outcomes.

'Someone like me': User experiences of the discussion forums of non-12-step alcohol online support groups, June 2019

BACKGROUND

Peer support is widely acknowledged to be an important factor in recovery from problem drinking. Many seek this from support groups, including those online. Whilst Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other 12-step groups have provided help to many people, some individuals do not find them useful. This paper aims to contribute to the current limited knowledge on non-12-step groups, i.e., those that do not follow the approach of AA.

METHODS

Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were carried out with users of five non-12-step alcohol online support groups (AOSGs) which differed in approach to recovery from problem drinking, size and location. The study was publicised via the groups, and interviewees self-selected. Data were analysed using thematic and template analysis.

RESULTS

The most important benefit of the groups, according to most interviewees was finding 'someone like me': something that many did not feel they could do elsewhere, including in AA. Another key perceived difference from 12-step groups was that their groups provided support without requiring them to follow a set programme for recovery. The groups respected individuals' rights to choose their own goal for sobriety (e.g., abstinence, moderate drinking) and to choose how they achieved it. Other key benefits included seeing that recovery is possible and sharing experiential information. Some disadvantages of using the forums are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

The findings report the experiences and perceptions of twenty-five users of non-12-step AOSGs. These are groups that have received little research attention so the findings offer a rare insight into users' opinions on these sources of peer support.

Characterizing Participation and Perceived Engagement Benefits in an Integrated Digital Behavioral Health Recovery Community for Women: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Research suggests that digital recovery support services (D-RSSs) may help support individual recovery and augment the availability of in-person supports. Previous studies highlight the use of D-RSSs in supporting individuals in recovery from substance use but have yet to examine the use of D-RSSs in supporting a combination of behavioral health disorders, including substance use, mental health, and trauma. Similarly, few studies on D-RSSs have evaluated gender-specific supports or integrated communities, which may be helpful to women and individuals recovering from behavioral health disorders.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the SHE RECOVERS (SR) recovery community, with the following 3 aims: (1) to characterize the women who engage in SR (including demographics and recovery-related characteristics), (2) describe the ways and frequency in which participants engage with SR, and (3) examine the perception of benefit derived from engagement with SR.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional survey to examine the characteristics of SR participants. Analysis of variance and chi-square tests, as well as univariate logistic regressions, were used to explore each aim.

RESULTS

Participants (N=729, mean age 46.83 years; 685/729, 94% Caucasian) reported being in recovery from a variety of conditions, although the most frequent nonexclusive disorder was substance use (86.40%, n=630). Participants had an average length in recovery (LIR) of 6.14 years (SD 7.87), with most having between 1 and 5 years (n=300). The most frequently reported recovery pathway was abstinence-based 12-step mutual aid (38.40%). Participants reported positive perceptions of benefit from SR participation, which did not vary by LIR or recovery pathway. Participants also had high rates of agreement, with SR having a positive impact on their lives, although this too did vary by recovery length and recovery pathway. Participants with 1 to 5 years of recovery used SR to connect with other women in recovery at higher rates, whereas those with less than 1 year used SR to ask for resources at higher rates, and those with 5 or more years used SR to provide support at higher rates. Lifetime engagement with specific supports of SR was also associated with LIR and recovery pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender-specific and integrated D-RSSs are feasible and beneficial from the perspective of participants. D-RSSs also appear to provide support to a range of recovery typologies and pathways in an effective manner and may be a vital tool for expanding recovery supports for those lacking in access and availability because of geography, social determinants, or other barriers.