tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post3037316440232027952..comments2023-07-26T05:52:08.797-07:00Comments on LifeRing Convenor: Once again on the AA dropout rateTom Shelleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04655545793058237046noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-39145487700590551592011-02-13T05:11:33.909-08:002011-02-13T05:11:33.909-08:00I would also challenge any AA/NA success rate as b...I would also challenge any AA/NA success rate as being invalid because it is self-reporting. If you don't have solid TESTING results, and that is impossible by the whole 'anonymous' thing, then really its just a heresay. I give you my experience: One my first experiences at a mtg was a speaker was to receive a 5 year coin; within minutes of taking the podium she passed out. Come to find out after the paramedics arrive she had BAC of over .08. So - we shall really never know the "attrition rate" nor the success rate of AA/NA. By my measurement (personal) any alternative to NA/AA is statistically better.KChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15599878547351456533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-48269153675385947072011-02-13T05:02:41.436-08:002011-02-13T05:02:41.436-08:00For Anonymous researcher and others:
I believe onc...For Anonymous researcher and others:<br />I believe once you've attended a few AA/NA mtgs you'd begin to understand how disempowering faith-based healing as used in these 'fellowships" are and being science minded one can lose touch with reality of one's situation. By this i mean addiction is not a moral shortfall/character defect-it is a behavior/choice based...this is the key issue with AA/NA...their claim the individual has no choice.<br />In practice (emphasis) AA/NA goes against all science and claims one's only alternative is the power of prayer and turning one's will and life over to a higher power. So, really i believe this relieves the "fellowship" from any statistical verification...how does one quantify daily 'miracles." One can't because AA/NA is merely a placebo and NEVER EVER addresses depression or anxiety in a scientific manner.KChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15599878547351456533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-70922064712595858842011-02-08T10:50:51.861-08:002011-02-08T10:50:51.861-08:00Re the latest "Anonymous" (why the secre...Re the latest "Anonymous" (why the secrecy?):<br /><br />True, behavioral change is difficult. But blaming the 95% walkaway rate on the difficulty of change is a copout. The majority of alcoholics (60%) who achieve long-term sobriety do it outside of AA (Vaillant). So, it isn't the problems of change that deters them, it's the problems of AA.<br /><br />I'm surprised you rely on the Project Match mess. PM did highly polished one-on-one counseling sessions, and really proved nothing either about AA as it works in real life, nor about the other methods.Martin Nicolaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08984388941903679095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-40775332583830663042011-02-08T10:13:18.990-08:002011-02-08T10:13:18.990-08:00Just for some perspective on the 5% rate: Achievin...Just for some perspective on the 5% rate: Achieving behavioral change is EXTREMELY difficult across the board. As many as 90% of individuals do not achieve behavioral change on their first attempt (Polivy and Herman 2002). It isn't so much AA, then, as it is the difficulty of the task itself. And the best available evidence suggests AA has comparable levels of effectiveness to other treatment methods (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Enhancement Therapy) and is actually better for the more severely dependent and if total abstinence is the goal (Project MATCH Research Group 1997 & 1998). Is it far from perfect? Absolutely. But it is nonetheless (and sadly) one of the best options that we have for treatment. (And, in case you're wondering, I'm a researcher not a member.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-88397457561093059692010-12-07T21:09:07.362-08:002010-12-07T21:09:07.362-08:00I believe from actually attending mtgs, the 5% a y...I believe from actually attending mtgs, the 5% a year figure. Your creative accounting is a contrivance. GSO too agrees with the 5%. Sorry...and agent green is anecdotal at best - let now let me outta this lifering stuff if were gonna do aa, please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-2190056972309045672010-07-23T10:39:18.591-07:002010-07-23T10:39:18.591-07:00Milo: That's creative math. I don't under...Milo: That's creative math. I don't understand it, and I suggest you write to Don McIntire, the author of the article, to explain it to him. If only 5 per cent of the people in a room have been attending for a year, most statisticians would say that the attrition rate at 1 year is 95 per cent. That's exactly how McIntire saw it. What McIntire did to put a happier face on the numbers is to set the baseline at 90 days, so that the attrition rate from 90 days to 12 months is 50 per cent (10 % to 5%), just discarding the numbers from the first three months. Needless to say, writing off the first 90 days doesn't sit well with what we think we know about the importance of the early days in recovery.Martin Nicolaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08984388941903679095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-26642386072258825732010-07-23T04:29:21.090-07:002010-07-23T04:29:21.090-07:00Martin, the graph is very simple. The researchers ...Martin, the graph is very simple. The researchers went into different AA meetings and asked the people there how long they had been attending, they plotted the results for those within their first year on this graph by monthy averages. So it shows, 19% of people were in their first month, 13% their second, 10% in their third and so on up to 5% in their twelfth month. (The other 95% in the survey was comprised of those sitting in the same room and with less than 11 months time attending meetings.)<br /><br />So, the graph actually shows that 26% of people who try an AA meeting for the first time are still attending AA after the first year, the attrition is from 19% (those in their first month) to 5% (those in their twelfth), and therefore around 74%.<br /><br />It's a frequency distribution graph.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-37649174990147335932009-11-10T11:53:10.015-08:002009-11-10T11:53:10.015-08:00In response to 519: That's certainly higher m...In response to 519: That's certainly higher math. Do you want to explain how you got there?<br /><br />The author of the article, McIntire, simple-mindedly imagined that if out of 100 people at the end of the year only 5 are left, the one-year retention rate was 5 per cent. <br /><br />If you can turn 5 per cent into 26 per cent I'd like to have you as my investment advisor. LOL.Martin Nicolaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08984388941903679095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-80899968446300171792009-11-10T10:31:04.787-08:002009-11-10T10:31:04.787-08:00Three words: Simple Frequency Distribution. Not un...Three words: Simple Frequency Distribution. Not understanding that concept leads to misreading of the graphs and the completely wrong 5% retention figure. The actual retention rate per the chart is 26%.Five Nineteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07027125757959211921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-22168706993202483342008-09-18T00:35:00.000-07:002008-09-18T00:35:00.000-07:00This blog gives several information about alcoholi...This blog gives several information about alcoholism. And also tells about the problems of the drug addicts.<BR/>=======================<BR/><BR/>susan<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.legalx.net" REL="nofollow">Dui In California</A>susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09614659501802192181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-39284711790263139952008-02-25T20:23:00.000-08:002008-02-25T20:23:00.000-08:00CraigTalbert and DavidMack: this is desoto10 from ...CraigTalbert and DavidMack: this is desoto10 from wiki.<BR/><BR/>The odd "rebuttal" to which Craig refers, above, in rebutting one AA 95% failure rate, claims "And anyway, this was a study of a clinic, not AA." How is that a rebuttal? For the second case of 95% attrition, which is actually what the article here was about, this "rebuttal" offers absolutely nothing except some nonsense about gym attendance. 95% of attendees at AA drop out after one year. This is not open to argument, and you both know it. You can try to explain it away, but you have to deal with reality. This issue for AA is how to keep some of these folks involved in AA, don't you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-59554090470570796492007-12-29T10:21:00.000-08:002007-12-29T10:21:00.000-08:00AA certainly did not live up to Bill W.'s dream of...AA certainly did not live up to Bill W.'s dream of a universal cure for alcoholism, and AA is not the only way out for problem drinkers. However, your 'revelation' that most drinkers don't get sober through AA is no put-down. Research over the last couple of decades indicates that AA is not for everybody, but is as good as any other treatment out there. Remember, there is no medical cure for alcoholism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05072890896656620158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4326872403609097165.post-27597654091274622132007-12-25T22:25:00.000-08:002007-12-25T22:25:00.000-08:00Most self-help/mutual-aid groups have similar attr...Most self-help/mutual-aid groups have similar attrition rates (has LifeRing done a similar study?). It's always a good idea to question what causes the lack of appeal, and even to direct people to other groups that might fit them better. <BR/><BR/>There's really at least three things to consider (1) the effect of stigma on newcomers, (2) the fit of the newcomers personality to those all ready in the group, and (3) they willingness to do the work.<BR/><BR/>There is a good rebuttal to the 5% drop-out rate here: <BR/><BR/>http://www.geocities.com/agent.green/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com