The Growth of Fellowship through Online AA Participation

When the pandemic started, many people in recovery from addiction were thrown into a conundrum. They were members of 12-Step groups that helped them maintain their sobriety, but they could no longer attend these groups in-person. How would they be able to maintain connection with their fellowships while also maintaining social distance. And just like the rest of the world, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) members learned to use Zoom. Online meetings started to pop up everywhere and people were able to join and maintain their sobriety. Researchers have proven over and over again that groups like AA are effective in prolonging abstinence, improving mental health, and strengthening social support networks for people with severe addiction issues [1-8]. Since the beginning of the pandemic, researchers have been exploring the efficacy with online 12-Step meetings and found they led to less productive group membership, recovery, limited experience of social cues and contexts, and limited the overall socialization outside of the meetings that created deep social connections [9-11]. Other researchers found members actually attended online groups more frequently than in-person groups with the majority of members reporting that the online meetings were just as effective in supporting their recovery [12]. Now that we are in a post-pandemic world and the option to choose to be online or in-person is available, has that affected the experience for people in online meetings? So, the research question must be, how do remote 12-Step meetings develop effective recovery in a post-pandemic world? This paper focuses on the norms and experiences of the members of one AA meeting that have remained online for five years after moving online at the beginning of the pandemic.

Even though 12-Step recovery (programs including AA, Narcotics Anonymous, Al-Anon, and others) has been considered a viable option for addiction treatment for many years [13], and we know AA produces greater long-term sobriety and helps in reducing health costs [14], there is still a significant lack of understanding as to how and why AA works [6]. Researchers have long sought to uncover the mechanisms that are in place that the program uses to facilitate change and lead to long-term recovery for its members. Some point to the social aspects of the group (the Fellowship) being one of the main sources of recovery [15-18]. The Fellowship is considered a group of individuals who are mutually supportive of each other and form a pseudo functional familial role [15]. This is echoed in the book Alcoholics Anonymous (or as it is also known The Big Book), “Yes, there is a substitute [for alcohol] and it is vastly more than that. It is a fellowship in Alcoholics Anonymous. There you will find release from care, boredom, and worry” (p. 152) [16]. 

To be able to address the research question, I have been observing one specific open online meeting that meets twice a day for the past 5 years. I have observed approximately 2500 online meetings with this group. In AA, there are two types of meetings: open and closed. Open meetings, which are the ones I have observed, are open to everyone as long as anonymity of the participants is maintained [15]. Closed meetings are only available to members who identify as alcoholic or addict (per their terminology). It is important to note the meetings develop their own agendas and formats based on the needs of the members, so groups may follow drastically different patterns. After gathering my observational data, I used an ethnographic methodology to identify the main aspects of this online AA group that leads to its function.

• Theoretical framework 

One of the purposes of the AA Fellowship is to support newcomers in their recovery. “Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of people who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism” (p. xxii and xxiv) [16]. AA is a strengths-based program, so a strength-based lens was incorporated into the theoretical framework of this research. 

• Sampling 

The choice of meeting was of convenience because the meeting was quickly converted to an online meeting for its members at the beginning of the pandemic. Being able to access two meetings a day every day allowed me the opportunity to observe the development and maintenance of the online Fellowship. The meeting is open to anyone who has the link, which was obtained through AA’s online meeting locator. It and thousands of other online meetings are accessible [19]. To protect the anonymity of the meeting and its participants, all other identifying information will not be provided. 

• Participants 

The majority of participants appeared to be in the age range of early 20’s to late 70’s, with the average being in their 40’s. Members reported a wide variety of economic stability with some reporting being homeless, while others had multiple homes. Members often shared personal demographics, including: profession, levels of education, marital status, race, religious view. This reflects the belief put forth in the Big Book, “Alcohol being no respecter of persons, we are an accurate cross section of America…” [20]. The meeting maintained a base membership of three initially and has grown its membership to over 50. Regular attendance significantly increased from three members to 19 (for day meetings) and 54 (for evening meetings). Many of the members attend multiple times and days a week. 

• Data collection 

During data collection, I was the covert non-participant observer to avoid the possibility of the Hawthorne Effect. AA allows observers in their open meetings, “Nonalcoholics may attend open meetings as observers” [21]. Because I was a covert non-participant observer, I did not record any audio or visual recordings, and I did not take any identifying information, such as names of participants. My main form of data collection was my field notes. I noted general patterns of social connections along with the language, rituals, and social norms present in the group. I noted attendance patterns, and I also noted recurrent themes that came from the discussions. 

• Data analysis 

My field notes were coded into themes and a description of the norms of the group, including their patterns of behavior and language. For validity, I used triangulation as a check and compared the findings to my previous article on the experience on in-person meetings [15], and with other research articles on the topic. I also conducted a pseudo member-check, asking people who attend online meetings to review my findings. I finalized the data analysis with a report of my findings into a narrative that reflects the experience of Fellowship in this online meeting.

• Norms of the group 

The group developed its norms over time to meet the needs of the participants, becoming strengths-based in the process. The growth and format of the group enabled the possibility of sharing and created a closeness akin to that of family. There were disagreements and voices raised on occasion, and the disagreements were worked out in a healthy way. Things that were hard to hear for a group member were often said with the caveat, “I say this with love.” Boundaries were frequently discussed and held by the group members in relating to each other and the outside world. 

The group took standard practices for in-person meetings and found ways to make them viable for their own meeting. One example is the “parking lot meetings” or “the meeting before the meeting and the meeting after the meeting.” These meetings are the more social and unofficial times when people gather to talk more in-depth about their lives and their experiences. For this online meeting, this is when the members are logging on and before they log off from the meeting. The members talked about their lived experiences, offered updates about issues they had shared in previous meetings, and asked after other members. They talked about their spiritual life and practices and asked for advice on personal struggles. The leader (Secretary) of the group spent this time recruiting other members to read the AA literature and lead the Serenity Prayer for the group. The parking lot meetings allowed members to connect in a deeper way with other members. 

At the start of the meeting, the Secretary began with the Serenity Prayer [22]. They then introduced themselves and shared the expectations of the meeting, explaining the purpose of the group was to focus on recovery and stressing, “We are a group who prays, not a prayer group.” They asked if there were any newcomers (people who are coming to their first meeting) or anyone new to that particular meeting. If there was a newcomer, the meeting would shift to focus directly on the newcomer’s needs. 

• Norms for newcomers in attendance 

New members were actively greeted and asked to share who they were and if they had been to a meeting before. Visually, the newcomer or person returning after a slip (terminology frequently used in AA to denote a relapse) appeared to be anxious, ashamed, and guilty. They were also asked to turn on their camera, even if only for a second; this was described as a way to know that the new member was not a “troll” (person who was attending the meeting to cause problems). Then the meeting dynamic shifted. The members quickly organized the topic of the meeting around the newcomer or person who slipped. The topics were Steps 1, 2, and 3, or sharing about experiences with slips. The members shared the new person was the most important person in the meeting every time a newcomer or someone returned after a slip. The members welcomed and congratulated them on coming into the meeting and making a positive move. This pattern occurred multiple times a week and created a palpable energy shift. Members who did not normally share (speaking on the topic of the meeting), were much more likely to share their own experiences with recovery and with slips. At least one member would speak to them directly with a list of suggestions and directions: take some phone numbers of members and call them (depending on the size of the meeting 5-20+ phone numbers were posted in the chat), start reading the Big Book, get a sponsor, and find a home group, whether it be the online group or an in-person group, come to the parking lot meetings, and keep coming to meetings. 

At the end of every meeting, once chips were given out, the 24-hour chip was focused on first (the 24-hour chip is given to a person new in sobriety). The member who gave out the chips spoke about this chip being the most important chip, and if someone acknowledged they wanted a 24-hour chip, all of the members congratulated this person. Because addiction is a shame-based illness [19], the members, having experienced shame for themselves, recognized the importance of removing the shame and focusing on a strength-based approach of encouragement for doing the right first step. Chips were given out for newcomers and newly returned once a week. 

• Norms for only group members in attendance 

When only regular meeting members were in attendance, the meeting was more structured and balanced. This meeting regulated how long members shared in a meeting, limiting the length of shares per member to two to five minutes with the expectations that everyone who wanted to share would have time to share during the meeting. If there was time left, members were encouraged to share again. The secretary asked members to type prayer requests in the chat to forward them to a specific member to be added to a prayer list. Once the meeting expectations were set, members of the group took turns reading AA literature aloud for the rest of the group. The secretary often picked the topic, choose a person to pick a topic, or asked if the members had a suggested topic. 

Regular topics during the meeting were based on AA readings, questions on how to regulate emotions, struggles with life experiences, and searching for forgiveness, but the topics could also vary beyond those topics. They shared on topics of cravings and “slips” in their recovery, but they also shared family troubles, legal issues, employment, and personal struggles. They would speak about and hear spiritual experiences and be instructed by other members as to how to grow in their own spirituality. People were given the chance to volunteer, and depending on the leader, people were called on to share. People shared, when comfortable, by introducing themselves as, “Hi, my name is _____, and I am an alcoholic.” Some would alter the wording, “…I am a grateful recovering (or recovered) alcoholic.” When they reached the time, again depending on the leader, a ding from an alarm, or an emoji would pop up on the screen. The members who shared were respectful of the time limits, with some finishing their thought and then passing (yielding to another speaker). Others would acknowledge the time and continue for another minute or so and then would end. If the share became too long, the Secretary stepped in and asked them to wrap it up so others could share. 

The whole ritual of giving out chips paralleled the in-person meetings, but for obvious reasons, they also had to be changed to fit the online experience. Whoever volunteered at the beginning of the meeting to “do the chips” (‘give out” the chips and recognize members for their achievements), did not have a collection of the traditional medallions that are present at in-person meetings. So, they held up random household items in representation of the different chips. A guitar pick could be a 24-hour chip, a TV remote could be a 1-year chip, and a ball of aluminum foil could be a 5-year chip. The person doing the chips held them up in representation, and it often caused the group to cheer for the person receiving the chip but also laugh at what was being held up. After the meeting, the Secretary took down the address of the member who earned the chip and would forward it to the “chip lady”. The chip lady handmade chips (on average about one a week) for each individual and would mail them. This diverged from the in-person meetings because the chips were official AA medallions. The chips from this meeting were truly handmade pieces of art that showed love and personal connection to the individual receiving them. 

At the end of the meeting, as with in-person meetings, the Secretary asked if there were any “burning desires” (something a member wanted to share but had not). If there was someone, the meeting continued until everyone who needed to share did. Most often, there were none, and the meeting would close. The person recording the prayer requests shared them for the whole group, and then the Secretary led the group in reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

The group’s biggest focus was to help people who struggled. If someone shared they were struggling with an issue in their life, the topic organically transitioned to that issue. Multiple members shared personal struggles almost every meeting. Group members entered encouragement into the online chat and offered their phone numbers to talk further. People would lovingly, “call you on your bullshit” in a way that explained what the individual did was wrong but not condemn them for it. The group became its own strength and support for each of the members to rely on and use when needed, a non-judgmental, unconditionally loving strength from others that was always available.

• Entering into the Fellowship 

The meeting dynamic shifted for the newcomers. Newcomers reported feeling welcomed and encouraged in their journey. Many reported that they would come back to another meeting, and approximately half did. At the end of their first meeting, they transitioned to a different state; instead of appearing anxious, ashamed, and guilty, the members were now encouraged and empowered. Many were joking along with other members and making plans to seek out a sponsor in the program. The meeting members were encouraging them verbally and through the chat, “You can do this!” The act of sharing contact information in the chats showed the participants how many people were willing to be there as supports. And the newcomers experienced that shift in belief. The stigma from being an alcoholic was not only minimized but truly reversed in the welcoming nature of the group because of the highly inclusive nature. 

• Engaging in the AA Fellowship 

As members engaged in the Fellowship, their shares became quite deep and vulnerable, and they often made connections in their shares to something another member said during that meeting or in a previous meeting. Members asked each other for expert advice based on their professions. For example, a person facing a warrant asked the former probation officer member what they should do. That allowed a sense of community, connection, and a deep level of trust to develop between members. 

Members would “call them out” in a loving way by putting down boundaries and providing reality checks. The newcomers watched and experienced healthy boundaries in the group. Members shared about their own growth and spiritual experiences and awakenings, noting that they had a completely negative world view and hopelessness that was exchanged for a newfound hope, contentment, calm, and joy. Members would often report back to the membership when they had a particular spiritual experience or awakening and describe it in detail. Others would frequently connect with the experience and share their own. Members described the spiritual experience as a shift from a negative worldview to a positive worldview. A member stated, “It’s not like I am going through this [spiritual awakening] all by myself, it’s like we are all going through it together!” The healthy relationships modeled by other participants and the shared spiritual experiences led to deeper connection for its members. 

• Shared narratives 

When sharing their stories, members frequently used dark humor to describe their situations. Other members would be laughing and chiming in with support in the chats because they could relate. This was not minimization of the experience, but a reframing that occurred over time with sobriety. Through the sharing by newcomers, they Fellowship helped them to move from victimization of circumstances to accountability, insight, and retrospection, and humor, as they recovered. Members addressed how others’ successes motivated them, and others’ struggles pointed out where they still needed to grow. Most importantly, deep connections were made from one’s own story to others in the Fellowship. As the members recovered, they shared where they found success with struggles that others expressed. The sharing of stories followed the bigger circular pattern of the newcomer being helped, recovering, and then helping others. 

Because this group was a spiritual group, many addressed their relationships with a Higher Power in their “shares” and how that impacted their growth. But they also connected their involvement with and support from the Fellowship as a source of their own spiritual growth. The members were respectful of other people's belief systems and often made sure to mention that they were talking about a God or Higher Power of their own understanding, and that others were welcome to believe what they wanted to believe. 

• Connection with the Fellowship 

The biggest connection with the Fellowship came in the way the Fellowship continued to connect with each of its members. The Fellowship showed concern for other members who were absent or going through struggles by members asking after others or stating they were going to give that person a call. When someone had a medical issue and needed help the group members geographically closest to them came up with a plan to physically help. They actively prayed for one another and shared prayer concerns. They also formed tight bonds with each other. Hearing other’s stories, members would often tie their own shares to an experience someone else had or to something they learned from another’s share, creating a shared narrative of recovery. 

• Encouragement from others

During the parking lot and regular meetings, members gave each other support and encouragement. Members showed care and concern by asking each other for updates on previous shares from members at least once before the meeting and once after the meeting, but on average three to four times in both time periods. When the results were no progress or negative circumstances, the members would give encouragement, and when the results were positive, the members would give congratulations. The members would offer suggestions and advice to help other members in their growth, creating a feeling of support from the Fellowship. 

• Giving and receiving help from the AA Fellowship 

A specific relationship that developed in the Fellowship was sponsor-sponsee. About 95% of the Fellowship talked about working with their sponsor, with about half of them having sponsors in the group. Often members cited information their sponsors told them about how to address issues they were experiencing. At least one share a meeting (more if sponsorship was the topic) focused on growth the member had because of their relationship with their sponsor. They spoke about the importance of the relationship with their sponsor and how that guided them through the 12 Steps and helped them to grow spiritually. Many expressed gratitude for the help and guidance their sponsors gave. 

Members asked for help from the Fellowship, and they received it in various ways, through prayer, resources, time, and connection, and they would report back how the Fellowship provided. The Fellowship would work together to provide solutions that the member needed, whether it be how to pray, how to attain resources, or how to deal with relationship issues. The Fellowship would work together to help find solutions for the individual when possible, and about 90% of the time, the member took the actions suggested and reported success. As the members grew in the Fellowship, they felt a debt of gratitude for the help they received from the Fellowship. This debt was something multiple members explained developed as a result of the time and effort that others put into their recovery. Once the member experienced the recovery, they knew that it was only because of the help they received from the Fellowship. As a result, they felt a deep need to give back to the Fellowship in whatever way they could, which meant helping newcomers. This is why the group’s focus on forming the norms around the newcomer became so deeply important to the Fellowship. 

• Sense of belonging in the AA Fellowship 

Throughout the meetings I recorded members mentioning they felt they belonged in this meeting at least once per meeting. They reported a deep sense of connection with others, every meeting referring to them as family. Some remarked about how the people in the Fellowship were the only ones who truly understood them and were able to provide help. They spoke about the irony of the online aspect of the meeting, that they felt a deep connection to people they had never met in-person. Once a week, someone reflected on how they felt they never connected to others in in-person meetings, but they were able to connect here. 

As they shared their experiences and received help from others, they formed strong bonds with people all over the country. But members also created other shared experiences. They vacationed together or drove to each other’s house for a visit. They met at half-way points to have lunch with each other and planned shopping trips together. The Fellowship was only fully experienced through online interactions if the member wanted it that way. There were multiple opportunities every year to meet in-person with members of the Fellowship too. These bonding opportunities led to the membership identifying the Fellowship as their family and different members would state at least two to three times a week that they belonged here (in the Fellowship). 

• Accountability to the AA Fellowship 

Members showed accountability to the Fellowship multiple times per meeting when talking about the importance of their own recovery having an impact on others. The members knew that the Fellowship wouldn’t “co-sign their bullshit,” meaning the member would not be told what they wanted to hear, but they would be told what was right and healthy for them. The Fellowship members would check people when they felt the member was out of line. At least one member gently but sternly reviewed the issue with the member and discussed options to make it right. The Fellowship reminded wayward members about the importance of them showing up and doing the work (of recovery), so the member can pass it on to the next person. Members felt accountable to the people who helped them recover (the other group members and their sponsors), and they felt accountable to passing that along to the next person. The aspect of accountability was discussed at least once a week during the meetings. 

• Giving back to the AA Fellowship 

Along with the importance of being accountable to the Fellowship, members also felt a need to give back in various ways. One aspect of giving back to the Fellowship was how the members took on the role of service to the group. People volunteered, for a year or two at a time, to open the meetings as Secretary. If members could not make such a long commitment, they served meeting by meeting, by doing the readings out loud, by taking down the prayer list, or giving out the chips. In the parking lot meetings, members would offer professional service or advice, provide resources, and even donate to help other members who were struggling. Service to the group was highlighted and appreciated multiple times every meeting, more in this group than any in-person group I have observed. Members thanked each other for the service they gave and often related it to helping them stay sober: the person doing the service and the person receiving the service.

The findings parallel earlier findings of my research [15], but for the sake of triangulation, it was important to explore other research findings on the subject. Kelly et al., conducted an empirical review of research based on AA recovery, and they believed that AA has two predominant change mechanisms: the AA Program and the AA Fellowship [14]. They went on to say that there were three factors that contribute to this recovery process: common factors, AA-specific factors, and spiritual and social factors. Common factors were based in social cognitive behavioral learning theory of Bandura, focusing on coping mechanisms and self-efficacy. AA-specific factors were framed as reading AA literature, commitment to abstinence, avoiding triggers, and belief in a Higher Power, and these were all found to be protective factors of relapse, but with lower levels of statistical certainty. Spiritual and social factors were also protective factors in recovery; however, Kelly et al., [14] recognized that there is no clear way to separate these variables from others completely. 

The themes discussed in the current research meet these criteria. For example, the theme Entering the Fellowship related to providing common factors of recovery, but it also applied to the spiritual and social factors, and it promoted the AA-specific factors. The criteria themselves do not seem to be as separated as needed for comparison with qualitative themes. Kelly et al., admitted that the factors have multiple overlapping processes that can be confounding and suggested more research be conducted to explore the specific mechanisms that promote recovery in AA [14]. 

More recently, Vigdal et al., conducted a metasynthesis of articles on social recovery and social support [23]. They found participants reported that when they were in communities they perceived as supportive and non-stigmatizing, they were able to move towards positive self-change. This positive self-change could take the form of taking personal responsibility, learning positive social skills, and finding sense of belonging. Most importantly, the members found accountability to the group and a deep desire to help others and give back through helping others. All of these were themes witnessed in the current research. Rettie et al., conducted a mixed methods study where the thematic analysis resulted in five themes [24]. First, participants shared perspective taking, which was defined as being able to openly share issues in the meeting and receive feedback from that group. Next, members shared about being connected to others, which was defined as being able to trust and confide in others in the group and feeling that sense of belonging. Third, participants reported that they were developing skills, which was defined as skills that allowed them to deal with life and become more socially adept. Fourth, members found value in group activities. Finally, members experienced a change in the self. 

All of the themes of Rettie et al., [24] were present in the current research. All of the current group members reported in their shares that being able to share openly and honestly and confide in the Fellowship allowed them to create a deep connection. Many noted they were using skills that they learned through the Fellowship and they were using these skills in social setting and in environments where, before, they would have reacted much differently.

• Synthesis of meaning for participants 

This Fellowship was dynamic and focused on the needs of its members, and in particular newcomers. When entering the meeting for the first time, a newcomer heard members laughing and joking, asking about other members, and speaking about personal issues they were experiencing. They were highly uncomfortable, feeling anxiety, guilt, and shame, but the welcoming atmosphere of the Fellowship would quickly put them at ease. They were greeted by members and immediately included into the structure of the meeting by being briefed on the rules and asked if they would like to briefly share about themselves. Then other members of the group shared based on the needs of the newcomer and an honest desire to connect. The focus was directed at the newcomer and their recovery. The Fellowship proved their primary purpose of helping the newcomer by the actions they took to do so. The Fellowship demonstrated, contrary to what some newcomers thought, that life in sobriety could be fun and engaging as members joked with each other and laughed at themselves. During the meeting, the Fellowship provided an outpouring of offers to help the newcomer, but they would also provide the newcomer an offer to help to give back through service work. About 75% of the members talked about how important this was to help them connect with Fellowship because they were addicts (their term), and no one wanted them around at all, let alone wanted to help them or even ask them for help. 

This connection grew as they continued attending the meeting, and they slowly became a part of the Fellowship by engaging and connecting with its members, sharing their story and listening to other’s stories, and asking for and receiving help. They developed a deep connection with the Fellowship and switched their identities from newcomer to group member. This shift also brought with it the descriptor of recovering or recovered alcoholic in their introduction for about 90% of them. They became members of the Fellowship. As their sense of belonging grew, so did their feelings of accountability and desire to give back to the group. Their feelings of accountability led them to ask for feedback about their behaviors and follow-through with the suggestions their sponsor and the Fellowship gave them, leading to healthier boundaries and relationships in their lives. For all of them, working the Steps as the Fellowship directed led them to a better life and a deeper spiritual relationship with their Higher Power (however, they defined that). Moving into a more stable existence and free of addiction gave them a deep sense of indebtedness and gratitude that they felt mandated their continued participation in the Fellowship. 

Recovery through AA’s 12-Steps is circular [15]. The individual enters as a newcomer with complete hopelessness and social stigmatization. They have the experience of being socially accepted and seeing a glimmer of hope from the Fellowship. The newcomer works on their recovery with the help and guidance of the Fellowship and recovers, and in the process, they experience spiritual awakenings that lead to changes in who they are and how they see life. They then take the role of the person helping the newcomer, trying to pay back their own debt of gratitude for their own recovery. Giving back to the Fellowship became a way for the members to show their gratitude and fully engage in the primary purpose of the Fellowship, by helping the newcomer. The newcomer became the person giving out their number, doing service work, and sponsoring others in their walk in recovery.

Because this was a covert non-participant ethnography, I was limited by the ability to interact with the participants and could not ask specific questions. I cannot use any possible identifying information of individuals, even if that information could be considered data. Along with this limitation, we also must consider the shift in our society. With the end of the pandemic and the only option being online meetings, further research needs to be conducted on the efficacy of online AA meetings because the members in the groups now are there because they choose to be, not because that is their only option. A greater understanding of the function and purpose of AA meetings, including in-person and online meetings, is needed through scientific literature. This provides a different sample of participants which needs to be studied more deeply in depth. Further research on the recovery experience for people in online AA meetings is required. Additionally, clinicians should attend open meetings to learn about the structure and function of AA and evaluate the different meetings for goodness of fit for their clients, so they can provide recommendations when appropriate for clients.

I would like to acknowledge my partner, Frank Vandivier, for all he has done to make this possible and Wednesdae Reim-Ifrach, Dr. GE Washington, and Dr. Crysy Nelson for their input and support.

1. Galanter M (2014) Understanding alcoholics anonymous as a spiritual fellowship: From individual to social structure. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 32: 111-119.
2. Galanter M, Dermatis H, Sampson C (2014) Spiritual awakening in Alcoholics Anonymous: Empirical findings. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 32: 319-334.
3. Galanter M, Kaskutas LA (2008) Research on Alcoholics Anonymous and spirituality in addiction recovery: The twelve-step program model spiritually oriented recovery twelve-step membership effectiveness and outcome research. Springer Nature, Berlin, Germany.
4. Humphreys K, Moos R (2007) Encouraging Posttreatment Self-Help Group Involvement to Reduce Demand for Continuing Care Services: Two-Year Clinical and Utilization Outcomes. Focus 5: 193-198.
5. Krentzman AR, Cranford JA, Robinson EA (2013) Multiple dimensions of spirituality in recovery: A lagged mediational analysis of alcoholics anonymous’ principal theoretical mechanism of behavior change. Subst Abus 34: 20-32.
6. Leurent M, Ducasse D, Courtet P, Olié E (2024) Efficacy of 12-step mutual-help groups other than Alcoholics Anonymous: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 274: 375-422.
7. Morgan TJ, Morgenstern J, Blanchard KA, Labouvie E, Bux DA (2004) Development of the OCDS--revised: a measure of alcohol and drug urges with outpatient substance abuse clients. Psychol Addict Behav 18: 316-321.
8. Stone DA, Conteh JA, Francis JD (2017) Therapeutic factors and psychological concepts in Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Counselor Practice 8: 120-136.
9. Grant DS, Dill-Shackleford KE (2017) Using social media for sobriety recovery: Beliefs, behaviors, and surprises from users of face-to-face and social media sobriety support. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 6: 2-20.
10. Bergman BG, Kelly JF (2021) Online digital recovery support services: An overview of the science and their potential to help individuals with substance use disorder during COVID-19 and beyond. J Subst Abuse Treat 120: 108152.
11. Krentzman AR (2021) Helping clients engage with remote mutual aid for addiction recovery during COVID-19 and beyond. Alcohol Treat Q 39: 348-365.
12. Galanter M, White WL, Hunter B (2022) Virtual twelve step meeting attendance during the COVID-19 period: A study of members of narcotics anonymous. J Addict Med 16: 81-86.
13. Kelly JF, Abry A, Ferri M, Humphreys K (2020) Alcoholics anonymous and 12-step facilitation treatments for alcohol use disorder: A distillation of a 2020 Cochrane review for clinicians and policy makers. Alcohol Alcohol 55: 641-651.
14. Kelly JF, Magill M, Stout RL (2009) How do people recover from alcohol dependence? A systematic review of the research on mechanisms of behavior change in Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction Research & Theory 17: 236-259.
15. Vandivier AM (2019) The growth of spiritual awareness through AA participation: A phenomenological study. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 38: 32-49.
16. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services (2001) Alcoholics Anonymous: The story of how many thousands of men and women have recovered from alcoholism (4thedn). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, New York, USA.
17. Galanter M, White WL, Hunter B, Khalsa J (2024) Internet-based, continuously available Narcotics Anonymous meetings: a new resource for access to Twelve Step support for abstinence. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 50: 321-327.
18. Wolfe DM, Hutton B, Corace K, Chaiyakunapruk N, Ngorsuraches S, et al. (2023) Service-level barriers to and facilitators of accessibility to treatment for problematic alcohol use: a scoping review. Front Public Health 11: 1296239.
19. Derakhshandeh NG, Shahidi S, Ghanbari S (2023) Feeling of Shame and Guilt in Recovering Addicts: A Qualitative Study. The Open Psychology Journal 16.
20. AA Intergroup (2025) Online Intergroup of Alcoholics Anonymous. AA Intergroup.
21. Alcoholics Anonymous (2025) What to Expect at an A.A. Meeting. Alcoholics Anonymous, New York, USA.
22. Niebuhr R (2012) The serenity prayer. Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis Catholic Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
23. Vigdal MI, Moltu C, Bjornestad J, Selseng LB (2022) Social recovery in substance use disorder: A metasynthesis of qualitative studies. Drug Alcohol Rev 41: 974-987.
24. Rettie HC, Hogan LM, Cox WM (2021) Identifying the main components of substance-related addiction recovery groups. Subst Use Misuse 56: 840-847.