I have discovered two predominant themes in the body of literature concerning addiction treatment and recovery. There is no clear, agreed upon definition of the terms addiction or recovery, and there is a noticeable lack of research and data relating to the effectiveness of treatment or the measurement of success in recovery. (Dodge, Krantz, and Kenny, 2010; Engs, 2012; Goodman, Mckay, and DePhillippis, 2013; Sanghani, Carlin, and Moler, 2015; Toft, 2000) I have chosen to review several articles that discuss these themes as well as some that are of particular interest to the topic of this study; including the chronic nature of addiction, and research on the effects of groups in recovery. Ruth Engs (2012) defines addictive behavior as
…show more content…
They describe their findings in great detail, and also the algorithms they used, to determine that approximately 47% of adults in the U.S. suffer from an addiction disorder. The methods used were tedious and the results were mind-boggling, yet reasonable, considering the inclusion of many process addictions. Much of the statistical data on prevalence pertains only to substance abuse, which makes the Sussman et al. study particularly interesting to me. An added bonus is the detailed overview of the addictions, substance and process, and the resulting consequences for many suffering addicts, families and communities. The eleven addictions studied were “tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, eating, gambling, Internet, love, sex, exercise, work, and shopping”. (“Abstract” para. 1) The overview contained an explanation of process addictions that was more thorough and informative than any I have seen in all of my research. The authors made an excellent case for including process addictions in their study, and by doing so greatly increased the level of significance of addictive disorders in the
They describe their findings in great detail, and also the algorithms they used, to determine that approximately 47% of adults in the U.S. suffer from an addiction disorder. The methods used were tedious and the results were mind-boggling, yet reasonable, considering the inclusion of many process addictions. Much of the statistical data on prevalence pertains only to substance abuse, which makes the Sussman et al. study particularly interesting to me. An added bonus is the detailed overview of the addictions, substance and process, and the resulting consequences for many suffering addicts, families and communities. The eleven addictions studied were “tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, eating, gambling, Internet, love, sex, exercise, work, and shopping”. (“Abstract” para. 1) The overview contained an explanation of process addictions that was more thorough and informative than any I have seen in all of my research. The authors made an excellent case for including process addictions in their study, and by doing so greatly increased the level of significance of addictive disorders in the