Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40990872›Full record

ArticleAlcohol, clinical & experimental research2025

Prevalence, predictors, correlates, and dynamic changes in the NIAAA-defined "recovery" definition.

John F Kelly, Kyla L Belisario, James MacKillop

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Toward a solution-focused addiction science.Frontiers in public health · 2025
    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 KellyPsychiatry in Addiction Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6915-0750
Kyla L BelisarioPeter Boris Center for Addiction Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5403-9531
James MacKillopPeter Boris Center for Addiction Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8695-1071

Funding

Investigating impulsivity and social network changes as novel mechanisms of behavior change for Alcoholics Anonymous' (AA) positive effectsR01AA025849 · NIAAA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KELLY, JOHN F., MACKILLOP, JAMES · 2018 to 2022
$2.7M
Mentoring in Patient-Oriented Addiction ResearchK24AA022136 · NIAAA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KELLY, JOHN F. · 2014 to 2023
$1.8M
NIAAA NIH HHS K24 AA022136NIAAA NIH HHS K24AA022136NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA025849NIAAA NIH HHS R01AA025849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDefinitions of alcohol use disorder (AUD) "recovery" abound, but the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) was the first to offer an operational definition ("AUD remission with no heavy drinking"). Little is known about this definition or how it compares to others. Greater knowledge would inform its clinical and public health utility.

designMultisite, single-group, prospective study of individuals beginning a new AUD recovery attempt (N = 442) assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months on AUD symptoms, alcohol use, and functioning/well-being. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) estimated NIAAA-defined recovery status and other recovery group statuses/transitions. Regressions tested group membership predictors; linear mixed models examined functioning/well-being.

resultsParticipants were classified into four groups depending on remission status and level of alcohol use: (i) Remission + abstinence (R + A; n = 102); (ii) Remission + low-risk drinking (R + LRD; n=51); (iii) Remission + higher-risk drinking (R + HRD; n = 70); (iv) No remission (NR; n = 219). During follow-up, groups 1 + 2 (NIAAA definition) were quite prevalent (34.6%), evincing patterns of larger psychosocial improvements compared with NR and R + HRD. R + A and R + LRD, however, differed on baseline characteristics, with R + A, similar to NR, being more severe on AUD-related metrics, whereas both remitted but still drinking groups (R + LRD, R + HRD) were less severe. Of note, R + A was the most stably remitted group; R + LRD and R + HRD were less stable, moving increasingly into NR. Unlike R + HRD, who, similar to NR, exhibited persistent lower levels of self-esteem and happiness, NIAAA-defined groups were associated with widespread improvements.

conclusionThe NIAAA recovery definition was consistent with empirical outcomes exhibited by the R + A and R + LRD profiles, with both showing large psychosocial improvements, but who may represent different AUD phenotypes/stages. Despite R + A exhibiting a pattern of historically greater clinical severity, they demonstrated more stable remission compared with both the NIAAA recovery definition-inclusive R + LRD, but especially R + HRD. Ongoing alcohol use appears to destabilize remission, with heavier use associated with less psychosocial improvement and AUD reinstatement.

Indexed as

AlcoholismAdultAlcohol AbstinenceAlcohol DrinkingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceProspective StudiesRemission InductionUnited Statesalcohol use disorderrecoveryrecovery definitionremission

Identifiers

PMID40990872
PMCPMC12638283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.