Test environment running 7.6.6

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Does the effectiveness of mutual aid depend on compatibility with treatment philosophies offered at residential rehabilitation services?

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

Background: Residential rehabilitation treatment (including both Therapeutic Communities (TC) and non-TC rehabs) is a key component of service delivery for people seeking treatment for substance use disorders in Australia and globally. While mutual aid is often associated with better long-term outcomes, there is little evidence about whether inconsistencies between residential rehabilitation philosophies and particular types of mutual aid influence subsequent engagement and treatment outcomes. Objective: To assess the uptake of mutual aid groups (12-step and other) on individuals leaving TC (n = 58) or non-TC (n = 78) residential treatment, and measure its impact on substance use outcomes. Methods: Using secondary analysis of existing data, the current paper reports on 12-month outcomes from a prospective cohort study of 230 individuals entering specialist alcohol and other drug residential rehabilitation treatment in two Australian states. Results: Participants who attended TC settings were more likely to attend non-spiritual mutual aid groups (i.e., SMART Recovery) than non-TC residents. Engaging in mutual aid groups was associated with significantly improved outcomes for the non-TC residents only, where it significantly predicted abstinence (OR = 5.8, CI = 1.5–18.46) and reduced frequency of use of participants’ primary drug of concern (OR = 8.6, CI = 2.6–28.6). Conclusions/Importance: Although 12-step is the most readily available and accessible form of mutual aid in Australia and benefited those attending non-TC residential rehabilitation, individuals exiting a TC program (whether they have completed treatment or not) may benefit from other forms of post-treatment recovery support, including alternative forms of peer-based support. The findings suggest treatment outcomes may be enhanced when the philosophies of residential treatment and post-discharge mutual aid are more compatible.

Description

Citation

Source

Addictive Behaviors

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until