Estimating the Efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous without Self‐Selection Bias: An Instrumental Variables Re‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: Observational studies of Alcoholics Anonymous' (AA) effectiveness are vulnerable to self-selection bias because individuals choose whether or not to attend AA. The present study, therefore, employed an innovative statistical technique to derive a selection bias-free estimate of AA's impact. METHODS: Six data sets from 5 National Institutes of Health-funded randomized trials (1 with 2 independent parallel arms) of AA facilitation interventions were analyzed using instrumental variables models. Alcohol-dependent individuals in one of the data sets (n = 774) were analyzed separately from the rest of sample (n = 1,582 individuals pooled from 5 data sets) because of heterogeneity in sample parameters. Randomization itself was used as the instrumental variable. RESULTS: Randomization was a good instrument in both samples, effectively predicting increased AA attendance that could not be attributed to self-selection. In 5 of the 6 data sets, which were pooled for analysis, increased AA attendance that was attributable to randomization (i.e., free of self-selection bias) was effective at increasing days of abstinence at 3-month (B = 0.38, p = 0.001) and 15-month (B = 0.42, p = 0.04) follow-up. However, in the remaining data set, in which preexisting AA attendance was much higher, further increases in AA involvement caused by the randomly assigned facilitation intervention did not affect drinking outcome. CONCLUSIONS: For most individuals seeking help for alcohol problems, increasing AA attendance leads to short- and long-term decreases in alcohol consumption that cannot be attributed to self-selection. However, for populations with high preexisting AA involvement, further increases in AA attendance may have little impact.