Getting SMART, SMART Recovery© programs and reoffending

Blatch, Chris; O’Sullivan, Kevin; Delaney, Jordan J.; Rathbone, D B

doi:10.1108/jfp-02-2015-0018

Cited by 11 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, an important limitation of these studies is the limited (Hester et al, 2013) or absent (Blatch et al, 2016;Brooks & Penn, 2003/ Penn & Brooks, 2000 The comparative influence of SMART Recovery on addiction outcomes relative to other forms of mutual aid and/or evidence-based treatments (alone or as an adjunct) has yet to be systematically evaluated. This is not without methodological challenges.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other indices (e.g. number of hospitalisations and recidivism) were assessed in three studies (Blatch et al, 2016;Brooks & Penn, 2003/Penn & Brooks, 2000Milin, 2007) and quality of life in only one study (Brooks & Penn, 2003/ Penn & Brooks, 2000. Despite high comorbidity between mental health conditions and substance misuse, standardised assessment of mental health status occurred in only three studies (Brooks & Penn, 2003/Penn & Brooks, 2000Hester et al, 2013;Kelly, SMART RECOVERY 10 Deane & Baker, 2015).…”

Section: Severity Of Addiction and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment engagement was the most common process variable assessed (10 of the 12), but only three studies explored its relationship to treatment outcome (Blatch et al, 2016;Brooks & Penn, 2003/ Penn & Brooks, 2000Hester et al, 2013). Other process variables assessed included elements of the therapeutic process (e.g.…”

Section: Process Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of SMART Recovery: Outcomes, process variables, and implications for research.

Beck¹,

Forbes²,

Baker³

et al. 2017

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical guidelines recommend Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) and 12-step models of mutual aid as important sources of long-term support for addiction recovery. Methodologically rigorous reviews of the efficacy and potential mechanisms of change are available for the predominant 12-step approach. A similarly rigorous exploration of SMART Recovery has yet to be undertaken. We aim to address this gap by providing a systematic overview of the evidence for SMART Recovery in adults with problematic alcohol, substance, and/or behavioral addiction, including (i) a commentary on outcomes assessed, process variables, feasibility, current understanding of mental health outcomes, and (ii) a critical evaluation of the methodology. We searched six electronic peer-reviewed and four gray literature databases for English-language SMART Recovery literature. Articles were classified, assessed against standardized criteria, and checked by an independent assessor. Twelve studies (including three evaluations of effectiveness) were identified. Alcohol-related outcomes were the primary focus. Standardized assessment of nonalcohol substance use was infrequent. Information about behavioral addiction was restricted to limited prevalence data. Functional outcomes were rarely reported. Feasibility was largely indexed by attendance. Economic analysis has not been undertaken. Little is known about the variables that may influence treatment outcome, but attendance represents a potential candidate. Assessment and reporting of mental health status was poor. Although positive effects were found, the modest sample and diversity of methods prevent us from making conclusive remarks about efficacy. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and public health utility of SMART as a viable recovery support option. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Severity Of Addiction and Its Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review of SMART Recovery: Outcomes, process variables, and implications for research.

Beck¹,

Forbes²,

Baker³

et al. 2017

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additional research on 12-step alternativesand particularly secular alternatives -is sorely needed" [12, p19] Research has predominantly been restricted to a handful of better-known groups, (e.g., Smart Recovery, Women for Sobriety and Moderation Management). Research into their face-to-face format includes comparisons with AA/12-step groups [12][13][14][15][16], descriptive overviews of groups [17 -18], research into user experiences [19] and group efficacy [20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Someone like me’: User experiences of the discussion forums of non-12-step alcohol online support groups, June 2019

Sanger

Bath

Bates

2019

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peer support is widely acknowledged to be an important factor in recovery from problem drinking. Many seek this from support groups, including those online. Whilst Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other 12-step groups have provided help to many people, some individuals do not find them useful. This paper aims to contribute to the current limited knowledge on non-12-step groups, i.e., those that do not follow the approach of AA. Methods: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were carried out with users of five non-12-step alcohol online support groups (AOSGs) which differed in approach to recovery from problem drinking, size and location. The study was publicised via the groups, and interviewees self-selected. Data were analysed using thematic and template analysis. Results: The most important benefit of the groups, according to most interviewees was finding 'someone like me': something that many did not feel they could do elsewhere, including in AA.Another key perceived difference from 12-step groups was that their groups provided support without requiring them to follow a set programme for recovery. The groups respected individuals' rights to choose their own goal for sobriety (e.g., abstinence, moderate drinking) and to choose how they achieved it. Other key benefits included seeing that recovery is possible and sharing experiential information. Some disadvantages of using the forums are also discussed. Conclusion: The findings report the experiences and perceptions of twenty-five users of non-12-step AOSGs. These are groups that have received little research attention so the findings offer a rare insight into users' opinions on these sources of peer support.

show abstract

“…In England, just under half (48%) of people in prison accessing substance misuse treatment services will have a diagnosed AUD, of which around one in ten (11%) were misusing alcohol only and not illicit drugs [ 44 ]. Evaluations of correctional substance abuse treatment (SAT) have suggested positive effects on reoffending through reductions in reoffending rates [ 8 , 21 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 52 , 56 ]. These positive findings have also been demonstrated for AUD clients in community treatment [ 55 ] although poorer outcomes relative to illicit drug misusers have been noted [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating a treatment effect on recidivism for correctional multiple component treatment for people in prison with an alcohol use disorder in England

Sondhi

Leidi

Best

2020

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is an emerging literature on the impact of correctional substance abuse treatment (SAT) on reoffending for people in prison with substance misuse issues. This study estimates a pathway effect for people in prison receiving multiple component treatments for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) to reduce reoffending by applying treatment effect estimation techniques for observational studies. Treatment groups comprised pharmacological treatments, psychosocial interventions (PSIs) and interventions that incorporate Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) programming. RNR compliant treatment matches treatment dose to the risk of reoffending, targets criminogenic need and is tailored to a person’s learning style. Methods Multiple treatment effect estimators are provided for people in prison diagnosed with an AUD in England when compared to a derived control group for: Pharmacological treatment only; RNR compliant treatment and PSIs. Results The outcomes for RNR compliant treatment suggest a lower recidivism rate compared to the control group. Pharmacological only treatment results in a statistically significant higher level of reoffending relative to the control group. Conclusions The creation of a universal system of ‘equivalence of care’ framed within a public health context in English correctional SAT may have had an unintended consequence of diluting approaches that reduce recidivism. There is an opportunity to develop an integrated, cross-disciplinary model for correctional SAT that unites public health and RNR compliant approaches.

show abstract

Getting SMART, SMART Recovery© programs and reoffending

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Systematic review of SMART Recovery: Outcomes, process variables, and implications for research.

Systematic review of SMART Recovery: Outcomes, process variables, and implications for research.

‘Someone like me’: User experiences of the discussion forums of non-12-step alcohol online support groups, June 2019

Estimating a treatment effect on recidivism for correctional multiple component treatment for people in prison with an alcohol use disorder in England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About