title: Does Alcoholics Anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments.
abstract: This article reviews the outcome (usually abstinence at 12 months) of 21 controlled studies of AA, with emphasis on methodological quality. Severe selection biases compromised all quasi-experiments. Randomized studies yielded worse results for AA than nonrandomized studies, but were biased by selection of coerced subjects. Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment or alternative treatment; residential AA-modeled treatments performed no better or worse than alternatives; and several components of AA seemed supported (recovering alcoholics as therapists, peer-led self-help therapy groups, teaching the Twelve-Step process, and doing an honest inventory).
authors.affiliation: Competency Program, North Texas State Hospital, Vernon, USA.
authors.forename: R J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Kownacki
authors.forename: W R
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Shadish
mesh_terms: D000436:Alcoholics Anonymous; D000437:Alcoholism / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D015982:Bias; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013695:Temperance; D016896:Treatment Outcome