Talk:Drug addiction recovery groups/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

adding smaller companies

hello, i work for a non profit addiction recovery group and i was wondering if i gave my information to the masses if someone else could add it to this list. i'm also going to request a page for it and then step away from it for a few months so that i won't be tempted to edit it or get into an edit war or mess up the article by conflict of interest. Is anyone interested in helping me out? and if its not considered relevant enough i will be fully behind a swift deletion? thanks! Killemall22 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it will all depend upon what reliable third party sources exist which we can create an article from. one of the common criteria for inclusion onto lists like this is if there is an article about it (but that is by no means a hard and fast rule). So I would recommend reading the rules, and creating a page based on those third party sources. once that is done, it will be a lot easier convincing editors that the group deserves inclusion on this list.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Religiosity and Recovery Group Selection

I removed the following from the article:

Analysis of the survey results found a significant positive correlation between the religiosity of members and their participation in twelve-step addiction recovery groups and SMART Recovery, although the correlation factor was three times smaller for SMART Recovery than for the twelve-step addiction recovery groups. Religiosity was inversely related to participation in Secular Organizations for Sobriety.

I find it obvious that religiously-inclined people choose religious organizations and secular people choose secularly inclined organizations when both exist for the same purpose. More to the point, I don't think this adds anything to our article. I'd appreciate hearing from others who agree or disagree, in case I'm missing something. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: it would likely be obvious to someone familiar with the topic, but wouldn't be obvious to someone new to it. This is appropriate here because this is the only article covering the topic of addiction recovery groups as a whole, and the article is comparing differences between them. - Scarpy (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Refocusing

This article is clearly biased against AA, which itself pioneered the peer addiction recovery group model. That should be discussed here, and then go on to describe the proliferation of peer addiction recovery groups who have utilized this model, and perhaps even conclude with a section on the lack of recognition and referrals for non-12-step groups. I understand some people feel the need to resist AA's hegemony, but this reads as if it were part of that resistance, rather than an encyclopedia article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: I have a done a lot of work on the AA article, but I have to disagree here. The history of AA is discussed appropriately in several articles, in including Alcoholics Anonymous, History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Twelve-step program, Bill W., Bob Smith (doctor), I could go on. It would be redundant to include the information again.

As far as suggestions for other content, regarding lack of referrals to Twelve-step alternatives, I'm for it so long as it's based on reliable sources, neutral, given due weight, etc. - Scarpy (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scarpy: I see what you mean about AA being thoroughly covered in other articles. My main concern is that most of this article seems peripheral to the article topic. I would like to see this article have the following sections:

1. The history of the use of support groups in addiction recovery, which can cover AA briefly and refer readers to other more thorough articles.
2. How support groups operate as part of an addiction recovery process, citing relevant research.
3. A list and/or comparison of current addiction recovery groups, designed in part to be helpful in determining which group might be most appropriate for certain categories of potential participants.
4. A discussion of the lack of recognition and referrals for non-12-step groups.

My concern is that I think the most relevant sections are (1) and (2), and right now the article is entirely composed of (3) and (4). Do others support moving the article in this direction? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this direction, but would add two or three friendly suggestions to the third and forth points. Kind of the elephant in the room when comparing these groups is the role of religion and spirituality. The alternatives to twelve-step addiction recovery groups I'd say fall in to three categories (a) they like religion and spirituality, but don't like the twelve-step philosophy regarding religion and spirituality (e.g. Celebrate Recovery, Narconon, Pagans in Recovery, maybe Women For Sobriety); (b) would prefer to take a secular approach because they see secular treatment modalities as more effective, or they don't believe in religion or spirituality, or they are religious but don't want to mix it with recovery (e.g. SOS, LifeRing, SMART); (c) want to create a group targeting a specific demographic and work as more of an auxiliary to twelve-step than an alternative (Association of Recovering Motorcyclists, Moderation Management, Women For Sobriety).

Then, building on those differences, can that information be used to predict a persons success in a particular program and how should that be weighted when making a referral?

Is it possible that some treatment modalities are better fits for recovery groups than others? Maybe CBT, for example, is less effective in peer-led groups than it would be in other settings? Maybe this is why AA, last time I checked had something like ~115,000 groups worldwide, which dwarfs all of the alternatives combined.

I think there's not a lot of research on that last question, but if good sources on it could be found, I'd really like to see it documented for encyclopedic value.

What do you think? - Scarpy (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Addiction Network

The Addiction Network has commercials on T. V. all the time yet there's no page on it. I'm sure other people, myself included, will want to know who founded it, who owns and funds it, who the key people are and any controversies or reviews of the network due to all the commercials they put out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.247.174 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Refocusing

This article is clearly biased against AA, which itself pioneered the peer addiction recovery group model. That should be discussed here, and then go on to describe the proliferation of peer addiction recovery groups who have utilized this model, and perhaps even conclude with a section on the lack of recognition and referrals for non-12-step groups. I understand some people feel the need to resist AA's hegemony, but this reads as if it were part of that resistance, rather than an encyclopedia article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: I have a done a lot of work on the AA article, but I have to disagree here. The history of AA is discussed appropriately in several articles, in including Alcoholics Anonymous, History of Alcoholics Anonymous, Twelve-step program, Bill W., Bob Smith (doctor), I could go on. It would be redundant to include the information again.

As far as suggestions for other content, regarding lack of referrals to Twelve-step alternatives, I'm for it so long as it's based on reliable sources, neutral, given due weight, etc. - Scarpy (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scarpy: I see what you mean about AA being thoroughly covered in other articles. My main concern is that most of this article seems peripheral to the article topic. I would like to see this article have the following sections:

1. The history of the use of support groups in addiction recovery, which can cover AA briefly and refer readers to other more thorough articles.
2. How support groups operate as part of an addiction recovery process, citing relevant research.
3. A list and/or comparison of current addiction recovery groups, designed in part to be helpful in determining which group might be most appropriate for certain categories of potential participants.
4. A discussion of the lack of recognition and referrals for non-12-step groups.

My concern is that I think the most relevant sections are (1) and (2), and right now the article is entirely composed of (3) and (4). Do others support moving the article in this direction? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this direction, but would add two or three friendly suggestions to the third and forth points. Kind of the elephant in the room when comparing these groups is the role of religion and spirituality. The alternatives to twelve-step addiction recovery groups I'd say fall in to three categories (a) they like religion and spirituality, but don't like the twelve-step philosophy regarding religion and spirituality (e.g. Celebrate Recovery, Narconon, Pagans in Recovery, maybe Women For Sobriety); (b) would prefer to take a secular approach because they see secular treatment modalities as more effective, or they don't believe in religion or spirituality, or they are religious but don't want to mix it with recovery (e.g. SOS, LifeRing, SMART); (c) want to create a group targeting a specific demographic and work as more of an auxiliary to twelve-step than an alternative (Association of Recovering Motorcyclists, Moderation Management, Women For Sobriety).

Then, building on those differences, can that information be used to predict a persons success in a particular program and how should that be weighted when making a referral?

Is it possible that some treatment modalities are better fits for recovery groups than others? Maybe CBT, for example, is less effective in peer-led groups than it would be in other settings? Maybe this is why AA, last time I checked had something like ~115,000 groups worldwide, which dwarfs all of the alternatives combined.

I think there's not a lot of research on that last question, but if good sources on it could be found, I'd really like to see it documented for encyclopedic value.

What do you think? - Scarpy (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Addiction Network

The Addiction Network has commercials on T. V. all the time yet there's no page on it. I'm sure other people, myself included, will want to know who founded it, who owns and funds it, who the key people are and any controversies or reviews of the network due to all the commercials they put out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.247.174 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Page Clarification

The first sentence states that the groups are made up of willing participants coming together to overcome drug addiction. Should the page be called "Drug Addiction Recovery Groups"? Clarification is necessary because there are many addiction recovery groups that follow the voluntary association 12-step model described that have nothing to do with drugs. Is this page about addiction recovery groups or drug addiction recovery groups? TolhurstJ (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with a rename here to Drug addiction recovery groups. That would distinguish this page between groups for process addictions. - Scarpy (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@TolhurstJ: I was a bit WP:BOLD and moved the page. I would also not be against a page for Behavioral addiction recovery groups although I don't know how groups like Overeaters Anonymous would fit in that framework, but as I think it through it strikes me as more of a behavioral addiction rather than substance abuse, e.g. it's not what's being consumed but how it's being consumed. - Scarpy (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The move is OK with me. Defendingaa (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction of a page should be an overview of what the page is about. The current intro is very tedious to read and does not give an overview of the entire article. I would like to edit it a bit, move it to a new section and write a new introduction that does a better job of presenting the article as a whole. TolhurstJ (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)