niaaa定义的“恢复”定义的患病率、预测因素、相关性和动态变化。

IF 2.7 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
John F Kelly, Kyla L Belisario, James MacKillop
{"title":"niaaa定义的“恢复”定义的患病率、预测因素、相关性和动态变化。","authors":"John F Kelly, Kyla L Belisario, James MacKillop","doi":"10.1111/acer.70172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Definitions of alcohol use disorder (AUD) \"recovery\" abound, but the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) was the first to offer an operational definition (\"AUD remission with no heavy drinking\"). Little is known about this definition or how it compares to others. Greater knowledge would inform its clinical and public health utility.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multisite, single-group, prospective study of individuals beginning a new AUD recovery attempt (N = 442) assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months on AUD symptoms, alcohol use, and functioning/well-being. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) estimated NIAAA-defined recovery status and other recovery group statuses/transitions. Regressions tested group membership predictors; linear mixed models examined functioning/well-being.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were classified into four groups depending on remission status and level of alcohol use: (i) Remission + abstinence (R + A; n = 102); (ii) Remission + low-risk drinking (R + LRD; n=51); (iii) Remission + higher-risk drinking (R + HRD; n = 70); (iv) No remission (NR; n = 219). During follow-up, groups 1 + 2 (NIAAA definition) were quite prevalent (34.6%), evincing patterns of larger psychosocial improvements compared with NR and R + HRD. R + A and R + LRD, however, differed on baseline characteristics, with R + A, similar to NR, being more severe on AUD-related metrics, whereas both remitted but still drinking groups (R + LRD, R + HRD) were less severe. Of note, R + A was the most stably remitted group; R + LRD and R + HRD were less stable, moving increasingly into NR. Unlike R + HRD, who, similar to NR, exhibited persistent lower levels of self-esteem and happiness, NIAAA-defined groups were associated with widespread improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NIAAA recovery definition was consistent with empirical outcomes exhibited by the R + A and R + LRD profiles, with both showing large psychosocial improvements, but who may represent different AUD phenotypes/stages. Despite R + A exhibiting a pattern of historically greater clinical severity, they demonstrated more stable remission compared with both the NIAAA recovery definition-inclusive R + LRD, but especially R + HRD. Ongoing alcohol use appears to destabilize remission, with heavier use associated with less psychosocial improvement and AUD reinstatement.</p>","PeriodicalId":72145,"journal":{"name":"Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence, predictors, correlates, and dynamic changes in the NIAAA-defined \\\"recovery\\\" definition.\",\"authors\":\"John F Kelly, Kyla L Belisario, James MacKillop\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acer.70172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Definitions of alcohol use disorder (AUD) \\\"recovery\\\" abound, but the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) was the first to offer an operational definition (\\\"AUD remission with no heavy drinking\\\"). Little is known about this definition or how it compares to others. Greater knowledge would inform its clinical and public health utility.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multisite, single-group, prospective study of individuals beginning a new AUD recovery attempt (N = 442) assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months on AUD symptoms, alcohol use, and functioning/well-being. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) estimated NIAAA-defined recovery status and other recovery group statuses/transitions. Regressions tested group membership predictors; linear mixed models examined functioning/well-being.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were classified into four groups depending on remission status and level of alcohol use: (i) Remission + abstinence (R + A; n = 102); (ii) Remission + low-risk drinking (R + LRD; n=51); (iii) Remission + higher-risk drinking (R + HRD; n = 70); (iv) No remission (NR; n = 219). During follow-up, groups 1 + 2 (NIAAA definition) were quite prevalent (34.6%), evincing patterns of larger psychosocial improvements compared with NR and R + HRD. R + A and R + LRD, however, differed on baseline characteristics, with R + A, similar to NR, being more severe on AUD-related metrics, whereas both remitted but still drinking groups (R + LRD, R + HRD) were less severe. Of note, R + A was the most stably remitted group; R + LRD and R + HRD were less stable, moving increasingly into NR. Unlike R + HRD, who, similar to NR, exhibited persistent lower levels of self-esteem and happiness, NIAAA-defined groups were associated with widespread improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NIAAA recovery definition was consistent with empirical outcomes exhibited by the R + A and R + LRD profiles, with both showing large psychosocial improvements, but who may represent different AUD phenotypes/stages. Despite R + A exhibiting a pattern of historically greater clinical severity, they demonstrated more stable remission compared with both the NIAAA recovery definition-inclusive R + LRD, but especially R + HRD. Ongoing alcohol use appears to destabilize remission, with heavier use associated with less psychosocial improvement and AUD reinstatement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.70172\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.70172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:酒精使用障碍(AUD)“恢复”的定义很多,但国家酒精滥用和酒精中毒研究所(NIAAA)是第一个提供可操作定义(“AUD缓解无大量饮酒”)的机构。人们对这个定义知之甚少,也不知道它与其他定义相比如何。更多的知识将为临床和公共卫生服务提供信息。设计:对开始新的AUD恢复尝试的个体(N = 442)进行多地点、单组、前瞻性研究,分别在基线、3、6、9和12个月评估AUD症状、酒精使用和功能/幸福感。隐马尔可夫模型(hmm)估计niaaa定义的恢复状态和其他恢复组状态/过渡。回归测试了群体成员的预测因子;线性混合模型检验了功能/幸福感。结果:参与者根据缓解状态和酒精使用水平分为四组:(i)缓解+戒断(R + A; n = 102);(ii)缓解+低危饮酒(R + LRD; n=51);(iii)缓解+高危饮酒(R + HRD; n = 70);(iv)无缓解(NR; n = 219)。在随访期间,1 + 2组(NIAAA定义)相当普遍(34.6%),与NR和R + HRD相比,显示出更大的社会心理改善模式。然而,R + A和R + LRD在基线特征上有所不同,R + A与NR相似,在aud相关指标上更为严重,而两个缓解但仍饮酒组(R + LRD, R + HRD)的严重程度较轻。值得注意的是,R + A是最稳定的缓解组;R + LRD和R + HRD不太稳定,逐渐进入NR。与R + HRD不同,R + HRD与NR相似,表现出持续较低的自尊和幸福水平,niaaa定义的群体与广泛的改善有关。结论:NIAAA的恢复定义与R + A和R + LRD的经验结果一致,两者都显示出很大的心理社会改善,但可能代表不同的AUD表型/阶段。尽管R + A表现出历史上更大的临床严重程度,但与NIAAA恢复定义(包括R + LRD,但特别是R + HRD)相比,它们表现出更稳定的缓解。持续的酒精使用似乎破坏了缓解的稳定性,更严重的酒精使用与更少的心理社会改善和AUD恢复相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prevalence, predictors, correlates, and dynamic changes in the NIAAA-defined "recovery" definition.

Background: Definitions of alcohol use disorder (AUD) "recovery" abound, but the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) was the first to offer an operational definition ("AUD remission with no heavy drinking"). Little is known about this definition or how it compares to others. Greater knowledge would inform its clinical and public health utility.

Design: Multisite, single-group, prospective study of individuals beginning a new AUD recovery attempt (N = 442) assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months on AUD symptoms, alcohol use, and functioning/well-being. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) estimated NIAAA-defined recovery status and other recovery group statuses/transitions. Regressions tested group membership predictors; linear mixed models examined functioning/well-being.

Results: Participants were classified into four groups depending on remission status and level of alcohol use: (i) Remission + abstinence (R + A; n = 102); (ii) Remission + low-risk drinking (R + LRD; n=51); (iii) Remission + higher-risk drinking (R + HRD; n = 70); (iv) No remission (NR; n = 219). During follow-up, groups 1 + 2 (NIAAA definition) were quite prevalent (34.6%), evincing patterns of larger psychosocial improvements compared with NR and R + HRD. R + A and R + LRD, however, differed on baseline characteristics, with R + A, similar to NR, being more severe on AUD-related metrics, whereas both remitted but still drinking groups (R + LRD, R + HRD) were less severe. Of note, R + A was the most stably remitted group; R + LRD and R + HRD were less stable, moving increasingly into NR. Unlike R + HRD, who, similar to NR, exhibited persistent lower levels of self-esteem and happiness, NIAAA-defined groups were associated with widespread improvements.

Conclusion: The NIAAA recovery definition was consistent with empirical outcomes exhibited by the R + A and R + LRD profiles, with both showing large psychosocial improvements, but who may represent different AUD phenotypes/stages. Despite R + A exhibiting a pattern of historically greater clinical severity, they demonstrated more stable remission compared with both the NIAAA recovery definition-inclusive R + LRD, but especially R + HRD. Ongoing alcohol use appears to destabilize remission, with heavier use associated with less psychosocial improvement and AUD reinstatement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信