Just looked back over Moos & Moos 2006 again.
I disagree with their conclusions.
Their findings were that:
1. Outpatient treatment was effective.
2. AA was effective.
3. They were roughly equally effective if used for 27 weeks in the first year.
4. From 28 weeks treatment showed no further improvement, but AA showed further improvement.
To me what this indicates is that a. treatment involves a lengthy process, b. the process is finite - i.e. it does have a point at which treatment can be considered "complete" and can no longer be improved upon, and this was 27 weeks. That's HALF A YEAR! If someone remained in treatment for half a year they had the best chance for long-term success compared to those who didn't enter treatment or used treatment or left their treatment plan earlier.
AA was similar, except that it showed "some improvement" beyond 27 weeks. This means, clearly, that AA is not as effective at delivering its therapy than the professional treatment. If AA was more effective then it should reach its peak and maintain it.
Statistically speaking, more people who entered both treatment and AA were not problem drinkers after 16 years than those who only did one or the other.
My main criticism would be that the paper does not mention the improvements that have been made in professional intervention therapy, including but not limited to CBT which can provide a tailored plan individualised to a person or a cohort or demographic of people with specific needs. If it was a 5-year study, instead of a 16-year study, started in 2009 and compared AA to CBT I'd be very surprised if AA was equal; and the evidence may also show (I don't know because I haven't looked, I'm just speculating) that CBT is more efficient and doesn't require the same length (27 weeks) as in the past - noting of course that individual results may vary. I base this on the fact that I hear therapists talking about 3-to-6 month plans indicating that they expect their clients to require treatment that lasts between 13 to 26 weeks, and that would be quite an improvement over the 27 weeks that was required in 1990 (or whatever year the study was actually commenced in).
I disagree with their conclusions.
Their findings were that:
1. Outpatient treatment was effective.
2. AA was effective.
3. They were roughly equally effective if used for 27 weeks in the first year.
4. From 28 weeks treatment showed no further improvement, but AA showed further improvement.
To me what this indicates is that a. treatment involves a lengthy process, b. the process is finite - i.e. it does have a point at which treatment can be considered "complete" and can no longer be improved upon, and this was 27 weeks. That's HALF A YEAR! If someone remained in treatment for half a year they had the best chance for long-term success compared to those who didn't enter treatment or used treatment or left their treatment plan earlier.
AA was similar, except that it showed "some improvement" beyond 27 weeks. This means, clearly, that AA is not as effective at delivering its therapy than the professional treatment. If AA was more effective then it should reach its peak and maintain it.
Statistically speaking, more people who entered both treatment and AA were not problem drinkers after 16 years than those who only did one or the other.
My main criticism would be that the paper does not mention the improvements that have been made in professional intervention therapy, including but not limited to CBT which can provide a tailored plan individualised to a person or a cohort or demographic of people with specific needs. If it was a 5-year study, instead of a 16-year study, started in 2009 and compared AA to CBT I'd be very surprised if AA was equal; and the evidence may also show (I don't know because I haven't looked, I'm just speculating) that CBT is more efficient and doesn't require the same length (27 weeks) as in the past - noting of course that individual results may vary. I base this on the fact that I hear therapists talking about 3-to-6 month plans indicating that they expect their clients to require treatment that lasts between 13 to 26 weeks, and that would be quite an improvement over the 27 weeks that was required in 1990 (or whatever year the study was actually commenced in).
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
