Alcohol. Antidipsotropics are drugs that were traditionally pre- scribed to create an adverse physical reaction when the individ- ual consumed alcohol intended to deter further drinking. The two prominent drugs in this category are disulfiram (tetraethylthiuram disulphide) and citrated calcium carbimide. When an antidipso- tropic interacts with alcohol, a person’s face and neck become warm and flushed, and the individual can experience dizziness, a pound- ing heart, a throbbing head, and nausea, essentially an exaggerated hangover effect. The severity of the reaction varies; the more alco- hol consumed, the more severe the reaction. If a person continues to consume alcohol, the person can experience escalating unpleasant and dangerous symptoms such as vomiting, tachycardia, hyperventi- lation, shortness of breath, hypotension, and in severe instances ar- rhythmias, unconsciousness, and even myocardial infarction, which explains, in part, why these drugs are no longer commonly used (Csi- ernik, 2019).
Acamprosate is a newer, less toxic pharmacological option for responding to alcohol dependency. Taken orally three times a day, the drug ameliorates the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal and aids in limiting reactions to drink-related cues. Acamprosate makes con- suming alcohol less pleasurable, with a goal of stopping lapses from becoming relapses. Acamprosate also has far fewer side effects than
antidipsotropics. It is thought to stabilize the chemical balance in the CNS that is disrupted by both alcohol and benzodiazepine with- drawal, though the exact mechanism of action remains uncertain. The American Psychiatric Association (2018) recommends the use of acamprosate with individuals who have moderate to severe alco- hol-related issues who have a goal of reducing alcohol consumption or becoming abstinent. Antabuse is now only recommended when patients specifically request it as part of their treatment regimen, with both acamprosate and naltrexone (see next) having better outcomes with fewer risks.
Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist that had been demonstrated to have some success in decreasing cravings for alcohol. Antagonists are drugs that block the effects of other pharmacologically similar psycho- active agents by occupying the same receptor sites in the brain. Antago- nists extinguish the behavioural aspects of drug use for when they are administered ahead of the psychoactive agent, the individual obtains no positive reinforcement from the psychoactive drug. However, as with antidipsotropics, the effectiveness of this method of intervention rests solely with the dependent person’s willingness to take the drug. As well, there is always a risk of overdose when using these drugs as dependent persons attempt to overcome the antagonistic effect by in- creasing the amount of psychoactive drug they consume.
When using naltrexone, which is marketed under the name ReVia, the pleasurable effects some people experience when they drink are diminished or do not occur. As well, there is no experience of nausea such as with the use of antidipsotropics. However, unlike its interaction with heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids, naltrexone does not prevent one from becoming impaired or intoxicated with the use of alcohol, as alcohol does not attach itself to only one type of receptor site in the brain as do opioids. When naltrexone is present in the brain, alcohol cannot stimulate the release of dopamine. The use of ReVia has been demonstrated to reduce the frequency and intensity of drinking, to re- duce the risk of relapse to heavy drinking, and to increase the percent- age of days abstinent. However, this drug does not discriminate and when it is being used, it decreases the release of dopamine regardless of the activity (Froehlich et al., 2019).
Baclofen is an orally administered muscle relaxant primarily used to prevent muscle spasms resulting from neurological conditions. It was also found to aid alcohol-dependent persons in maintaining ab- stinence and is well tolerated, even in cases of lapse. Effectiveness in producing abstinence appears to be dose dependent; an Ameri- can study of 30 mg a day did not produce significant abstinence, whereas a German study administering three doses of 90 mg, up to 270 mg/day did. However, even in the German study, one-quarter of participants dropped out due to lapses and only half of the partici- pants maintained abstinence throughout the entire study. Individuals taking Baclofen are found to have greater rates of abstinence com- pared to those not receiving any type of pharmacological assistance, though it does not consistently decrease episodes of heavy drinking, craving, anxiety, or depression (Rose & Jones, 2018).
Topiramate is a non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsant medication. Preliminary clinical trials have demonstrated that its use decreases alcohol’s reinforcement of the CNS, leading to a decrease in alcohol consumption (Johnson et al., 2007). Topiramate appears to antagonize alcohol-rewarding effects by inhibiting dopamine release while also enhancing the inhibitory function of GABA, which in turn antagonizes glutamate receptors, further inhibiting dopamine release. Side effects of topiramate include an increased likelihood of cognitive dysfunction and numbness, tingling, dizziness, taste abnormalities, and decreased the major limitation of topiramate is that tolerance seemingly builds rapidly to its effects (American Psychiatric Association, 2018).
Opioids. Drug dependence that involves heroin and other opioid drugs is a chronic, relapsing condition with a generally unfavourable prognosis. The outstanding characteristic elements include an over- powering drive to continue to administer the drug and to obtain it by any means for pleasure or to avoid the extreme discomfort of with- drawal. The basic premise for opioid substitution therapy is that ap- propriate drug substitutes suppress withdrawal symptoms, reducing the use of illicit and higher-risk opioids. The two primary substances employed in opioid substitution therapy are methadone and Suboxone, both of which are themselves opioids. These alternative opioids, both of which are administered orally, do not produce the same euphoria as other opioids and are safer as they are given in standardized doses with no impurities and do not have to be taken as frequently. The use of methadone and Suboxone eliminates withdrawal though the drugs need to be taken every day because if a person misses a dose, the indi- vidual will experience the same physically painful withdrawal effects as from any other opioid.
Methadone is currently the most widely used pharmacotherapeutic medication for maintenance treatment, with a history dating back to the Vietnam War era (Dole & Nyswander, 1965). The World Health Organization considers it an essential medication for global health as it effectively reduces illicit drug use, treats opioid use disorder, and re- tains individuals in treatment, even if they do remain physically depen- dent upon this opioid. Among methadone’s pharmacological strengths is that, unlike morphine, it is highly effective when administered orally and it is metabolized and excreted slowly, making it therapeutically ef- fective for up to 24 hours. However, tolerance and withdrawal do occur in methadone users, though their development is much slower than with other opioids. Without other forms of intervention, chronic users eventually become both psychologically and physically dependent on methadone. Methadone’s side effects include weight gain due to low- ered metabolism, dental issues due to decreased salivation, constipa- tion, numbness in extremities, sedation, and, for some, hallucinations when initially prescribed the drug. Long-term use will also create sex- ual dysfunction due to decreased testosterone levels in males, as occurs with chronic use of any opioid (Csiernik, 2019).
The major alternative to methadone is Suboxone, which is com- prised of the partial μ-opioid receptor agonist buprenorphine in combination with the opioid antagonist naloxone in a 4:1 ratio. Bu- prenorphine, derived from thebaine, is a partial opioid agonist, pro- ducing less sedation than methadone, which is a full opioid agonist. The effects of buprenorphine peak 1 to 4 hours after the initial dose with adverse effects are similar to other opioids: nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Naloxone is a true antagonist with a chemical structure similar to oxymorphone. However, it produces neither pain relief nor any type of psychoactive effects. When taken orally, it produces no dis- cernable effects; however, if naloxone is crushed, dissolved, or injected, it produces severe opioid withdrawal effects almost immediately. As a result, naloxone has several therapeutic uses not only in combina- tion with buprenorphine in Suboxone but also as a means of reversing the opioid-induced respiratory depression, sedation, and hypotension that is commonly observed in cases of opioid overdose. Naloxone can begin working in as little as 30 seconds after administration though it has a far shorter half-life than the vast majority of opioids: 30 to 90 minutes (Kerensky & Walley, 2017; McDonald et al., 2017). A recent study in the United Kingdom found that Suboxone users suffered fewer
poisonings and had a lower risk of mortality than did methadone users, though on average, the period of usage was shorter for Suboxone than for methadone (Hickman et al., 2018).
Nicotine. Nicotine replacement therapy has become a prominent pharmacological treatment approach for those wishing to stop smok- ing tobacco products with several administration options (Table 18.13). In each of these approaches one form of nicotine is simply being re- placed by another, though all the other harmful side effects of smoking are eliminated, except with electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), where it is reduced. E-cigarettes have the look and feel of cigarettes but do not burn tobacco. Instead, e-cigarettes use a battery and an electronic device to produce a warm vapour from a cartridge containing nico- tine, often propylene glycol, and some flavouring additive. Cartridges can be refilled with different flavours and nicotine concentrations. E-cigarettes still contain some carcinogens (including nitrosamines), toxic chemicals (such as diethylene glycol), and tobacco-specific com- ponents that are harmful to humans. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine to the blood more rapidly than nicotine inhalers but less rapidly than cigarettes. As a result, the effect of the e-cigarette on nicotine craving is similar to that of the nicotine inhaler but less than that of cigarettes. This has led researchers to conclude that e-cigarette use leads to de- creased tobacco consumption among existing smokers (McKeganey et al., 2019). The issues of course have not been this reduction, which is a positive harm reduction approach, but rather the number of new vapers this method of nicotine administration has created, primarily adolescents and young adults.
E-cigarettes are a safer nicotine delivery mechanism but still not a totally safe option. Individuals who have moved to vaping rather than smoking are still consuming nicotine, with a variety of health issues associated with this administration option, from minor mouth and throat irritation to airway obstruction, increased cardiovascular risks, and lung damage (Ghosh et al., 2019). While carcinogens remain in the product, the overall health effects are less than smoking a cigarette, though here again, as with cigarettes and cigars, vapour in the air con- tains harmful irritants, though it is not yet known if these are as prob- lematic as second-hand smoke. For individuals addicted to tobacco, completely substituting e-cigarettes for combustible tobacco cigarettes reduces their users’ exposure to thousands of toxicants and carcinogens present in traditional tobacco cigarettes (Koval et al., 2018). E-cigarettes can be an aid in both reducing and totally stopping the use of tobacco products (Manzoli et al., 2017) with the potential to decrease tobacco- related deaths (Levy et al., 2018). Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of e-cigarettes is more effective in promoting smoking cessation than the other nicotine-replacement options summarized in Table 18.13 (Hajek et al., 2019). However, this benefit has been under- mined by the direct targeting of the product to non-smokers, primarily adolescents, creating a group of new nicotine users who otherwise may never have used this drug.
Benzodiazepines (sedative-hypnotics). Benzodiazepines with long half-lives (clonazepam) are used to assist persons to withdraw from dependencies on benzodiazepines with short half-lives (Xanax). A typical five-step intervention model incorporating benzodiazepine drug substitution with ongoing counselling would consist of the fol- lowing:
1. For 2 weeks, patients monitor and record their daily drug consump-
tion.
2. Eight one-on-one therapy sessions follow at a rate of one per week.
3. Gradual reduction of drug use begins by switching to drugs with longer half-lives.
4. Ongoing supportive care and reassurance continues until the cessa- tion of any drug use.
5. A 1-year follow-up period commences, using a support group model (Ashton, 2013).
Stimulants. No medications have yet been proven effective in
pharmacologically treating addiction to either cocaine or metham- phetamine. Ritalin has been used in an attempt to improve brain function among those addicted to cocaine, while both D-amphet- amine and methylphenidate are being used to treat heavy amphet- amine users, with some limited success. When given disulfiram for the treatment of their alcoholism, individuals who misused both co- caine and alcohol also reduced their cocaine use from 2.5 days per week to less than once per week. As well, modafinil, a mild stimulant used to treat chronic fatigue, has been found to have some value in treating those physically dependent on crack. While several clini- cal trials have found those using modafinil to be far more likely to become abstinent, the vast majority (over three quarters in the ex- perimental group) did lapse or relapse during the study period (Chan et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2016).
Implementation at Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Levels of Prevention
Primary prevention. Prevention models in health care are classi- fied as primary, secondary, or tertiary. In terms of substance use and
addiction prevention primary approaches are those efforts focused on reducing the demand for a substance as well as stopping the occur- rence of alcohol or drug use or misuse. Examples include implementing healthy public policy, offering health education related to addiction, taxing and health-related warning labelling of licit products such as cigarettes and alcohol, and promoting educational campaigns such as addiction and mental health in the workplace.
Secondary prevention. Secondary prevention seeks to limit further health deterioration and social harm from the use of, misuse of, depen- dence on, and addiction to psychoactive substances. Examples include programs of early recognition, awareness campaigns, relapse preven- tion, community support approaches, and strategies for safe prescrib- ing guidelines. The most prominent and most controversial among secondary prevention approaches is harm reduction.
Harm reduction. Harm reduction refers to a range of programs, policies, and interventions designed to reduce or minimize the adverse consequences associated with drug use, such as overdose, infections, and spread of communicable diseases. Officially one of the four pillars of Canada’s drug plan, the approach involves any strategy or behaviour that an individual uses to reduce the potential harm that may exist for them. Harm reduction is more than just a programming approach, it is also a philosophy, and seven prominent values that shape harm reduc- tion programming are highlighted here:
1. All humans have intrinsic value.
2. All humans have the right to comprehensive, non-judgmental med-
ical and social services.
3. Licit and illicit drugs are neither good nor bad.
4. Psychoactive drug users are sufficiently competent to make choices
regarding their use of drugs.
5. Outcomes are in the hands of the substance user.
6. Options are to be provided in a non-judgmental, non-coercive
manner (Denis-Lalonde et al., 2019).
Needle exchange programs. Needle exchange programs allow in- jection drug users (IDUs) to trade used syringes for new, sterile sy- ringes and related injection equipment, although in recent years many of these fixed and mobile outreach programs have also begun to offer crack pipes and straws for cocaine use. Needle exchange is a harm re- duction strategy that arose as a direct result of the blood-borne infec- tions of HIV, hepatitis C virus, and hepatitis B virus that were an unin- tended outcome of injection drug use. However, this is not only a form of intervention for IDUs but also part of a broader public health model, as funding for these initiatives occurs so as to limit the transfer of these diseases into the general populace.
Opioid substitution therapy: methadone treatment and methadone maintenance/Suboxone treatment and Suboxone maintenance. Both methadone/Suboxone maintenance (MM/ SM) and methadone/Suboxone treatment (MT/ST) consist of an individual administering a sufficient dose of the alternative opioid on a daily basis to eliminate opioid withdrawal symptoms. The basic premise of opioid substitution therapy is that methadone or Suboxone administered daily by mouth is effective in the suppres- sion of withdrawal symptoms and in the reduction of the use of illicit opioids. MM/SM involves determining a correct dose for each individual and providing regular health care and treatment for other addiction issues, while MT/ST programs also entail the provision of counselling and support, mental health services, health promotion, and disease prevention and education, along with advocacy and links to community-based supports and ser- vices such as housing.
Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT). Some individuals do not re- spond well to methadone or Suboxone, as it may not ease the physical or psychological pain of withdrawal, it may not negate the craving, or an individual may have a negative reaction to the synthetic nature of the drug. Historically, these individuals either endured a cold turkey withdrawal or more typically went back to using street opioids. By re- turning to use, they again put themselves at risk for life-threatening health issues, including drug overdose, blood-borne viral infections, and endocarditis, as well as the violence that accompanies illicit drug transactions. One controversial alternative is heroin-assisted treat- ment (HAT). Under a HAT protocol, street opioid users are prescribed pharmaceutical quality heroin, which is injected in safe, clean special- ized medical clinics. Service users typically attend up to two to three times per day to self-inject their dose of heroin. Average heroin dosage ranges from 400 and 600 mg/day, with supervised consumption ad- ministered on average at around 150 to 300 mg/dose. Clinical staff can also supplement this further with a small 20- to 60-mg oral methadone dose as needed. Methadone administration is prevalent as a means to prevent withdrawal between the administrations of heroin which has a far shorter half-life. The heroin-assisted programs are usually sup- ported by access to psychological support in the form of counseling and group work, as well as general social welfare support from social services (Hill, 2016).
The overall value of HAT remains inconclusive, in part due to a lack of multiple outcomes studies. Existing research suggests that the major- ity of dependent users seeking treatment can use either methadone or Suboxone and these options should be offered first. However, HAT can be considered as a secondary option for those who fail to make signifi- cant progress with the standard options. Research completed on HAT programs found that program participants demonstrated improved:
* Use of structured drug treatment programs
* Physical and psychological health outcomes
* Social integration including improved capacity for work, better liv-
ing conditions, and debt management
* Pro-social behaviours highlighted by a significant reduction in of-
fending-related activity (Hill, 2016).
Supervised consumption sites (SCS). Supervised consump- tion sites (SCSs) began as supervised (or safe) injection sites (SISs) in Canada. These clinics were designed to provide IDUs with clean needles and sterilized works to inject their drugs in a safer manner. SISs that have evolved to SCSs provide individuals with a healthier environment in which to inject, inhale, intranasally, or orally con- sume drugs while also providing related health and social services, all in one location. While the first Canadian site opened in Lethbridge, Alberta, in 2017, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands ad- opted the concept of safe injection rooms during the 1970s, again as a general public health initiative. However, since then, the strategy demonstrated a decrease in new HIV and HCV infections and re- duced the number of overdose-related deaths while providing access to primary and emergency health care for a traditionally oppressed population. After the opening of a new site, once the public backlash has subsided, there is generally a decrease in public nuisance issues related to drug use, including public injecting, discarded syringes, and injection-related litter (Rowe & Rapp, 2017).
SCSs offer a safe place where drug-dependent individuals can ad- minister drugs under the supervision of trained multi-disciplinary health and social services staff who can provide education regarding safer use practices, as well as respond appropriately in the event of an overdose. Each SCS varies in the way it operates. However, in general, individuals bring pre-obtained drugs to the site, are provided with ster- ile equipment to use, and consume their drugs with nurses and other
trained staff nearby. Typically, needles, syringes, candles, sterile water, paper towels, cotton balls, cookers/spoons, ties, alcohol swabs, filters, ascorbic acid, and bandages are available in the injection-specific areas. SCSs allow substance users to have their privacy while also offering the comfort of knowing that trained medical staff are available to re- spond in case of an emergency. SCSs do not allow the sharing of drugs or equipment and prohibit assisted injection. SCSs lead to a reduction in syringe sharing among users, which also reduces the spread of dis- eases and infections. SCSs attempt to protect and promote the health of drug users by employing a non-judgmental, person-centered approach rooted in a harm-reduction philosophy (Rowe & Rapp, 2017).
As with other forms of harm reduction, SCSs benefit a hard-to- reach population by offering services with minimal barriers to access and avoidance of interactions with the criminal justice system. Con- tact with these hard-to-reach persons can lead to important social and health referrals and treatment opportunities, which ultimately result in positive social and community opportunities. The introduction of SCSs has contributed to individual improvements in health, social function- ing, and stabilization, along with a decreased number of overdoses and pre-mature deaths (Kennedy et al., 2019). The Registered Nursing Association of Ontario has now prepared a set of best practice guide- lines to assist in the development of this important community-based service (https://rnao.ca/sites/rnao-ca/files/bpg/Implementing_super- vised_injection_services.pdf ).
Controlled drinking. Controlled drinking is an adapted behav- ioural technique used with persons experiencing low levels of alco- hol misuse. Assessment of the patient’s level of alcohol dependence is necessary to determine if a goal of controlled drinking is feasible. This approach proposes that training in drinking skills is required to teach alcohol misusers to drink in a non-abusive manner as an alternative to abstinence as part of a more broad-based treatment program. The first step in controlled drinking is determining whether a person is us- ing alcohol excessively or is alcohol dependent. This is accomplished by imposing a 2- to 3-week period of abstinence. If the person can go without drinking, they are moved into the next phase. Those who can- not abstain during this baseline period generally do not qualify for a controlled drinking treatment program. In the program itself patients are provided with a set of goals and rules to help them control their alcohol intake. A common drinking goal of a set number of standard drinks per week is established, with numerous limitations. For a young, healthy male approximately 6 feet tall and weighing 180 pounds, the following regimen might be applied:
* No more than two standard drinks per day (one for women)
* No more than one drink per hour
* Sip drinks and avoid carbonated beverages
* Drink only on a full stomach
* Two days per week must be set aside on which no alcohol is con-
sumed
* Limit weekly intake to 14 standard drinks per week (7 for women).
Low-risk, or reduced, drinking is achievable for some individuals as they undergo treatment for alcohol dependence. Individuals with lower dependence severity, less baseline drinking, fewer negative mood symptoms and fewer heavy drinkers in their social networks have a higher probability of achieving low-risk drinking during treatment. Reduced drinking may be a viable alternative for those who do not have alcohol-related physical damage and who have not experienced any se- rious personal, financial, legal, or employment problems as a result of their alcohol misuse. However, controlled drinking training is not an alternative for those who are physically and psychologically dependent on alcohol or on any other psychoactive substance (Witkiewitz et al., 2017).
Managed alcohol programs (MAPs). The primary purpose of managed alcohol programs (MAPs) is to offer continuing health and housing services for individuals who have a history of homelessness and alcohol misuse along with chronic health issues and are in many cases deemed to be near the end of their lives. The aim is to provide humane treatment and reduce harm to the patients by eliminating the need to binge drink and to drink non-beverage alcohol products. Nurs- ing, medical, and rehabilitation care are provided along with a regular, limited amount of alcohol. MAPs’ goal is to provide their residents with permanent rather than transient housing, and in this way it falls into the Housing First philosophy. Some MAPs offer private rooms, though the standard is shared accommodation, with all programs being staffed 24 hours per day. Care plans are individualized and typically include a recreational component. The overall goal is to improve the quality of life of patients while allowing them to live in a respectful, supportive environment. General strategies for relapse prevention are cognitive and behavioural: recognizing and learning how to avoid or cope with threats to recovery, changing lifestyle, learning how to participate in activities without drugs, and securing help from other people or from social support services. In Canada MAPs are almost exclusively used by men.
Relapse prevention and aftercare. Long-term recovery is not a straight line but is preceded by periods of flux and discontinuity before change is stabilized. These periods can last longer than the length of time the individual was actually in treatment initially. This reality has placed increasing importance and emphasis upon follow-up, aftercare, or, as it has become more prominently known, relapse prevention. Relapse, which is a return to previous drug use patterns, poses a fundamental barrier to the treatment of addiction. It is distinct from lapse, which is a singular or short-term use of drugs that is viewed as a learning opportu- nity around a specific event or trigger (Kougiali et al., 2017).
Depending on the definition one uses for recovery, statistics indi- cate that upwards of 90% of individuals have the potential to relapse. Historically, relapse had been attributed to factors such as cravings or withdrawal symptoms arising due to the disease of addiction. However, relapse is a complicated, multi-faceted process rather than a discrete event and is now generally considered not a failure but rather a setback. Thus aftercare needs to be a continuation of work initiated during the initial treatment regimen, with a focus on resettling and reintegrating individuals back into society. The goal is to provide continuous encour- agement, support, and additional services as needed following a patient’s completion of a treatment plan. Preventing relapse or minimizing its extent is a necessity for successful, long-term change (Csiernik, 2021).
The contemporary approach to relapse prevention also rejects the idea of a person being either successfully abstinent or failing and be- ing a drug misuser. Rather, the transition is viewed as a process where lapses are not end points but learning opportunities. If a lapse becomes a relapse, it is still only a temporary setback, which is not unique to the individual but a common part of the process toward the end goal of abstinence. It is simply another learning opportunity, which, when resolved, becomes part of the person’s behavioural repertoire. The pri- mary goals of treatment are functional analysis, determining triggers and consequences of use, and skill building.
Relapse prevention as an intervention is a tertiary strategy, in- tended to reduce the likelihood and severity of relapse following the cessation or reduction of problematic substance use. Cognitive- behavioural principles guide contemporary evidence-informed re- lapse prevention models (Figure 18.5). Marlatt and Witkiewitz’s (2005) model views relapse as a complex, circular process in which various factors interact, creating the opportunity for the person to return to regular drug use. Thus the key becomes to assist patients in recognizing and quickly addressing high-risk situations in their lives. There are two sets of variables that need to be considered. The first are called tonic factors and are constants in a person’s life while the second group, phasic, are transient influences in a person’s life. Tonic processes include personality, genetic and familial risk factors, drug sensitivity, metabolism, neurotransmitter levels, and the effects produced by physical withdrawal. Tonic processes also include cogni- tive factors that show relative stability over time, such as drug-related outcome expectancies, a person’s degree of self-efficacy, and personal beliefs about one’s ability to remain abstinent. Tonic processes provide a baseline of risk, but it is typically phasic responses that produce the relapse event. Phasic processes can be both cognitive and affective, including urges/cravings often triggered by an event or mood, both
negative (distress) or positive (eustress). A minimally acceptable af- tercare program would involve a monthly contact for 1 year, with the provision that the patient can contact the relapse prevention worker whenever needed. Box 18.4 outlines relapse prevention strategies that are of value in a nursing environment. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and related 12-step groups are a self-help format that also serves as an ongoing relapse prevention support system. While AA is the most prominent and well-known form of mutual aid, it is not the best fit for all, especially women with trauma histories. As such, it is valuable to familiarize yourself with a range of options such as Women for Sobri- ety (WFS), SMART Recovery, the Secular Organization for Sobriety (SOS), Rational Recovery (RR), Moderation Management (MM), and Refuge Recovery.