A randomized trial of treatment options for alcohol-abusing workers.
BACKGROUND
Employee-assistance programs sponsored by companies or labor unions identify workers who abuse alcohol and refer them for care, often to inpatient rehabilitation programs. Yet the effectiveness of inpatient treatment, as compared with a variety of less intensive alternatives, has repeatedly been called into question. In this study, anchored in the work site, we compared the effectiveness of mandatory in-hospital treatment with that of required attendance at the meetings of a self-help group and a choice of treatment options.


METHODS
We randomly assigned a series of 227 workers newly identified as abusing alcohol to one of three rehabilitation regimens: compulsory inpatient treatment, compulsory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and a choice of options. Inpatient backup was provided if needed. The groups were compared in terms of 12 job-performance variables and 12 measures of drinking and drug use during a two-year follow-up period.


RESULTS
All three groups improved, and no significant differences were found among the groups in job-related outcome variables. On seven measures of drinking and drug use, however, we found significant differences at several follow-up assessments. The hospital group fared best and that assigned to AA the least well; those allowed to choose a program had intermediate outcomes. Additional inpatient treatment was required significantly more often (P less than 0.0001) by the AA group (63 percent) and the choice group (38 percent) than by subjects assigned to initial treatment in the hospital (23 percent). The differences among the groups were especially pronounced for workers who had used cocaine within six months before study entry. The estimated costs of inpatient treatment for the AA and choice groups averaged only 10 percent less than the costs for the hospital group because of their higher rates of additional treatment.


CONCLUSIONS
Even for employed problem drinkers who are not abusing drugs and who have no serious medical problems, an initial referral to AA alone or a choice of programs, although less costly than inpatient care, involves more risk than compulsory inpatient treatment and should be accompanied by close monitoring for signs of incipient relapse.
Walsh
D C
DC
Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115.
Hingson
R W
RW
Merrigan
D M
DM
Levenson
S M
SM
Cupples
L A
LA
Heeren
T
T
Coffman
G A
GA
Becker
C A
CA
Barker
T A
TA
Hamilton
S K
SK
D000328:Adult; D000436:Alcoholics Anonymous; D000437:Alcoholism / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D003042:Cocaine; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D004651:Employment; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008404:Massachusetts; D009786:Occupational Health Services / Q000191:economics; D010358:Patient Participation; D019966:Substance-Related Disorders / Q000534:rehabilitation; D013695:Temperance
D003042:Cocaine