Table 2.
Included studies utilizing peer support groups
| Authors | Design | N | Population | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armitage et al67 | Pre/posttest | 152 | Individuals in recovery from addiction and their families | 86% of participants indicated no use of alcohol or drugs in the past 30 days at the 6-month follow-up 95% of participants reported strong willingness to recommend the program to others, 89% found services helpful, and 92% found materials helpful |
| Boisvert et al70 | Pre-/posttest | 18 | Individuals in addiction recovery living in permanent supportive housing | Substance use relapse rate reduced (24%–7%) for participants in the peer support community Pretest relapse rate was 85%; posttest rate was 33% for tenants returning to homelessness No differences in pre- and post-QOLR The MOS–SSS subscales revealed significant differences and moderate-to-large effect sizes (r) on the MOS–SSS subscales: emotional/informational support (P=0.005; r=0.628), tangible support (P=0.028; r=0.493), and affectionate support (P=0.027; r=0.494) |
| Tracy et al21 | Pre-/posttest | 40 | Individuals with substance use disorders in an addiction treatment program | Feasibility and acceptance data in the domains of patient interest, safety, and satisfaction were promising In addition, mentees significantly reduced their alcohol use (P<0.01) and drug use (P<0.01) from baseline to termination The majority of mentors sustained abstinence Fidelity measures indicated that mentors adhered to the delivery of treatment |
| Tracy et al72 | RCT comparing TAU + MAP-engage vs TAU + DRT + MAP-engage vs TAU | 96 | High recidivism veterans (mostly males) with substance use disorders initially recruited from an inpatient clinic | TAU + MAP-engage alone and TAU + DRT + MAP-engage were associated with increased adherence to post-discharge outpatient appointments for substance use treatment (P<0.05) when compared with TAU only As well as for substance use treatment, general medical, and mental health services (P<0.05 for all appointments combined) when compared with TAU only |
| Mangrum68 | Quasi-experimental design comparing ATR and substance use treatment vs substance use treatment | 4,420 | Consumers with substance use disorders referred from drug courts, probation, or child protective services | Individuals who completed the program were significantly more likely to have received recovery support groups (t(1)=65.75, P<0.0001) |
| Purcell et al73 | RCT study of peer-mentoring intervention INSPIRE vs a video discussion control group | 966 | HIV-positive IDU participants | Adherence rates measured at 87%, 83%, and 85% at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively Risk behaviors decreased among randomized participants although no significant differences in conditions |
| Latka et al74 | RCT study of peer-mentoring intervention vs a time-equivalent attention-control group | 418 | Individuals who are HCV-positive and IDUs | Compared with the controls, participants in the intervention group were less likely to report distributive risk behaviors at 3 months (OR =0.46; 95% CI =0.27, 0.79) and 6 months (OR =0.51; 95% CI =0.31, 0.83), a 26% relative risk reduction Peer mentoring and self-efficacy were significantly increased in the intervention group, and intervention effects were mediated through improved self-efficacy |
| Velasquez et al71 | RCT study of both individual counseling vs peer group education/support | 253 | HIV-positive men who have sex with men with alcohol use disorders | Treatment effect was demonstrated over each 30-day period with regard to number of drinks consumed (OR =1.38; 95% CI =1.02, 1.86) As well as the number of heavy drinking days (OR =1.5; 95% CI =1.08, 2.10) over each 30-day period Main effect was found in the number of days in which both heavy drinking and unprotected sex occurred over each 30-day period |
| Marlow et al79 | Pre-/posttest | 13 | Formerly incarcerated men on parole released from prison within the past 30 days | Findings from the assessment of psychosocial variables demonstrated significant improvement on two abstinence self-efficacy subscales, negative affect (P=0.01), and habitual craving (P=0.003) No significant differences in total scores for abstinence self-efficacy or the other measures from baseline to follow-up for the 13 participants who completed the study No significant differences in 12-step participation with regard to attendance, sponsor contact, or belief in 12-step framework |
| Andreas et al69 | Pre-/posttest | 509 | Men and women in recovery from addiction who had been incarcerated, and their families and significant others | Increased self-efficacy and increased family and friend support, quality of life, and feelings of guilt and shame were demonstrated at 12 months from baseline (no data were shown) Peer and staff accessibility were valued |
Abbreviations: ATR, access to recovery; CI, confidence interval; DRT, dual recovery treatment; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IDU, injection drug user; INSPIRE, Intervention for Seropositive Injectors–Research and Evaluation; MAP, Mentorship for Alcohol Problem; MAP-engage, Mentorship for Addiction Problems to enhance engagement to treatment; MOS, Medical Outcomes Study; OR, odds ratio; QOLR, Quality of Life Rating; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SSS, Social Support Survey; TAU, treatment as usual.