Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38492804›Full record

ArticleJournal of substance use and addiction treatment2024

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.

John F Kelly, Samuel Levy, Maya Matlack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of substance use and addiction treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John F KellyMassachusetts General Hospital, Psychiatry Department, United States of America; Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, United States of America. Electronic address: jkelly11@mgh.harvard.edu.
Samuel LevyMassachusetts General Hospital, Psychiatry Department, United States of America.
Maya MatlackMassachusetts General Hospital, Psychiatry Department, United States of America.

Funding

Mentoring in Patient-Oriented Addiction ResearchK24AA022136 · NIAAA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KELLY, JOHN F. · 2014 to 2023
$1.8M
Expanding the science on recovery mutual aid for alcohol use disorder: An investigation of SMART RecoveryR01AA026288 · NIAAA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KELLY, JOHN F. · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
NIAAA NIH HHS K24 AA022136NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA026288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSome 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.

methodsCross-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.

resultsAA 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.

conclusionCommon 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.

Indexed as

Alcoholics AnonymousAlcoholismQualitative ResearchAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf-ManagementAddictionAlcoholics AnonymousMutual aidMutual-helpRecoverySelf-helpSMART RecoverySubstance use disorderTreatment

Identifiers

PMID38492804
PMCPMC11090757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.