Adherence to Recovery Practices Prescribed by Alcoholics Anonymous: Benefits to Sustained Abstinence and Subjective Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a British cultural context, we tested the idea that physical abstinence and psycho-existential well-being during the aftercare period of recovery may be enhanced by higher levels of overall compliance with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)-prescribed practices. We also examined whether enactment of certain types of AA-sanctioned practices might carry greater (or unique) therapeutic benefits relative to engagement in other ingredients of AA. Former residents (n = 76) of a Minnesota Model treatment program (in England) were assessed 2 years after being discharged. Higher levels of overall adherence tended also to be associated with greater abstinence, lower depression, and a stronger conviction that life has meaning and purpose. Microanalysis of discreet types of AA involvement showed formal completion of Steps 4 and 5 (done as a pair with a sponsor) had a robust salutary effect, being related to abstinence and better emotional and existential well-being. In addition, participation in Step 11 (praying/meditating) and having an AA sponsor were both associated with a broad spectrum of apparent benefits. Practitioners might consider implementing motivational interventions designed to facilitate greater client willingness to adhere more closely to the AA style of living. Results that identified especially potent facets of the AA lifestyle suggest counselors concerned with “high-quality abstinence” may wish to tailor such interventions so as to selectively target active ingredients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".