Each January, millions commit to 31 days without alcohol in a challenge known as Dry January. For many, it feels like the perfect reset—an opportunity to break habits, regain control, and enjoy the benefits of temporary abstinence.

But does a month-long challenge lead to lasting change? Research shows that while Dry January participants often experience short-term improvements, only a fraction maintain reduced drinking or abstinence beyond the challenge window.1

This article uses cohort analysis to compare Dry January participants with individuals engaged in year-round recovery. By examining follow-up data, app user retention patterns, and long-term recovery trajectories, we’ll answer a critical question: Who stays sober?

Key Takeaways

• Dry January participants often start as heavier drinkers seeking change, with average AUDIT-C scores higher than the general population.

• 62.4% of Dry January participants complete the challenge, but fewer than half maintain reduced drinking in frequency and volume six months later.

• Year-round recovery cohorts with continuous abstinence in the first year have an 89% likelihood of staying sober beyond five years.

• App user data shows that engagement beyond 26 weeks predicts long-term abstinence far more than one-month challenges alone.

• Sustained recovery requires lifestyle changes, identity shifts, and support networks that extend beyond the initial period of challenge.
  
  
  

The Popularity of Dry January

Dry January has experienced significant growth in recent years, driven by cultural conversations around “sober curiosity” and the increasing accessibility of free tools, such as the Try Dry app. One study found that participation among higher-risk drinkers doubled from 4% to 8% between 2020 and 2021, and app registrations increased by nearly 35% during the pandemic.2

But while participation is increasing, the data suggest that population-level drinking trends remain unchanged. This raises an important question: Are temporary challenges sufficient for lasting change?

Summary Table: Dry January Results vs. Year-Round Recovery

Why We Need to Compare Cohorts

Understanding the difference between temporary abstinence and long-term recovery requires more than just completion rates. Cohort analysis reveals that Dry January participants are often heavier drinkers with higher motivation compared to the general population, but lack the structured support and identity change associated with sustained recovery.1 3

In the following sections, we’ll examine the evidence from both sides: how participants in Dry January fare over time and why continuous engagement in recovery programs predicts stronger long-term outcomes.

Dry January Results: Who Completes or Maintains Change?

Completion Rates

Dry January has impressive completion rates compared to many other alcohol-related interventions. A landmark prospective cohort study of 1,192 Dry January participants found that 62.4% completed the challenge, with official app registrants achieving the highest completion rate at 69.8%, compared to 36.2% for unofficial participants.1

This same study also found that participants in Dry January were typically heavier drinkers than the general population, with an average baseline AUDIT-C score of 8.47 compared to 5.74.¹ This higher-risk profile highlights their motivation but also their increased vulnerability to relapse after the challenge.

Additional cohort analysis demonstrates that Dry January participants often begin with higher AUDIT-C scores and higher motivation levels than the general population, but lack the structured identity change associated with long-term recovery programs.3 4

Six-Month Outcomes

What happens after January? Follow-up data paints a mixed picture. At six months, successful Dry January completers demonstrated sustained reductions in alcohol consumption, with mean AUDIT-C scores dropping from 8.89 to 6.72.1

In contrast, the control group from the same study — participants who did not take part in the abstinence challenge — showed no measurable improvements in immune or metabolic markers over the same timeframe. Among those who withdrew from the challenge, relapse into prior drinking patterns was common, underscoring the difficulty of sustaining change without structured support.

A separate study analyzing Try Dry app usage data from 2020 to 2021 reinforced this trend. While app registrations increased by 34.8%, population-level alcohol consumption did not show a corresponding reduction, suggesting that the benefits of Dry January may be limited to motivated individuals rather than shifting overall societal drinking trends.2

Who Maintains Change?

Long-term reductions in drinking appear tied to the level of engagement during the challenge. Individuals who used official tracking tools, such as the Try Dry app, and sought external accountability were more likely to maintain reduced drinking at six months.2

The presence of supportive environments also plays a crucial role. Households where alcohol was readily available were associated with higher relapse rates, reinforcing that situational and social factors are critical in sustaining change.3 4

Key Takeaways: Dry January Results

• 62.4% of participants complete the challenge; official registrants fare better than unofficial participants.1

• Successful completers see sustained reductions in alcohol use at 6 months, but many return to previous habits if they fail to finish.1

• App engagement and supportive environments significantly increase the likelihood of maintaining change.2 4

Cohort Data From Digital Recovery Tools:

Engagement Predicts Long-Term Outcomes

Digital recovery tools like Drink Less and Try Dry provide unique insight into user engagement patterns. A natural experiment analyzing 27,576 Drink Less app users identified three distinct user groups:

• 1-week users (57%)
  
  

• 4-week users (28%)
  
  

• 26-week users (15%)
  
  

The 26-week group had 397% higher odds of achieving 12-month abstinence compared to 1-week users (56% vs. 23% abstinence rates).4

Dry January Engagement Is Often Too Short

For many Dry January participants, app engagement is limited to the one-month challenge. This creates a critical problem: the drop-off in support after the challenge ends is associated with higher relapse rates. Sustained engagement beyond four weeks is consistently linked with better outcomes.4

A secondary analysis of 672 Drink Less users reinforced this point, finding that while higher education and age were linked to increased engagement, short-term app usage did not significantly reduce alcohol use beyond the initial period. Extended engagement, in contrast, correlated with long-term success.5

This aligns with longitudinal research showing that the duration of abstinence attempts directly predicts success rates. Individuals who remain abstinent for at least 12 months have an 47% probability of maintaining sobriety at three years, while episodic abstinence attempts lasting less than three months are far less successful, with only a 34% sustained recovery rate.6

Lessons for Dry January Participants

Digital app engagement can be helpful, but short-term participation is rarely sufficient. Scoping reviews of one-month alcohol abstinence campaigns show that the highest completion rates (up to 70%) and long-term success rates (64% at six months) occur when participants use official apps and pair them with structured follow-up support.7

By contrast, participants who disengage after January or attempt the challenge without structured support see significantly lower rates of lasting behavior change.7

Key Takeaways: App User Cohort Data

• Extended app engagement predicts 12-month abstinence rates of 56%, significantly surpassing those of episodic 1-week users.4
  
  

• Short-term use alone, like the average Dry January participant, rarely sustains change beyond the duration of the challenge.5 7
  
  

• Recovery tools are most effective when integrated into a longer-term commitment and paired with follow-up support.6 7

Temporary vs. Sustained Abstinence: Mechanisms and Environmental Factors

Short-Term Campaigns Offer Limited Durability

One-month alcohol abstinence campaigns like Dry January have benefits, but research suggests they often fail to create lasting behavior change for many participants. A scoping review analyzing multiple national campaigns found that participants who were successful in reducing their alcohol consumption were more likely to maintain this reduction at six months (64%). Still, those who failed to complete the month saw far lower rates of sustained change (23%).7

The same review found that completion rates varied widely, from 35% to 70%, depending on the level of support participants received. Those who actively used apps, participated in group events, or sought external accountability were more likely to complete the challenge and maintain behavioral improvements afterward.7

Environmental Factors Matter

Environmental factors play a critical role in relapse. A longitudinal study following participants in a Dry November campaign found that household alcohol presence was the strongest predictor of increased drinking after the challenge (OR = 3.29).8

Similarly, cohort studies tracking individuals across early recovery demonstrate that the absence of supportive environments increases relapse risk significantly, even among those who complete one-month challenges.9

This reinforces the importance of environmental control: participants who kept alcohol at home or were surrounded by heavy drinkers were far more likely to revert to old habits.8 9

Temporary Efforts Don’t Address Psychological Recovery

One-month challenges, such as Dry January, typically focus on behavior change rather than deeper identity or psychological restructuring. Longitudinal analyses show that participants who sustain abstinence for less than three months have higher relapse hazard ratios (HR = 2.4) and only a 34% probability of long-term success, compared to 87% for those who achieve at least 12 months of abstinence.10

Multi-year cohort studies show that the critical psychological restructuring required for long-term sobriety unfolds over one to four years, well beyond the scope of a single-month effort.9 10

Key Takeaways: Temporary vs. Sustained Abstinence

• Completing one-month challenges is associated with short-term improvements, but long-term success is limited without continued support.7

• Environmental triggers like household alcohol presence significantly increase relapse risk.8 9

• Temporary abstinence campaigns often fail to address the more profound psychological and identity changes needed for sustained sobriety.10

Digital Interventions and Retention: Extending Support Beyond One Month

Why Extended Engagement Matters

Digital interventions can support meaningful reductions in alcohol consumption, but their effectiveness hinges on retention. A randomized controlled trial of 761 participants using an alcohol reduction app found that engagement beyond four weeks was the strongest predictor of long-term success at six months.10

Participants who actively used the app for more than 90 days showed significantly greater reductions in drinking compared to those who disengaged after the initial period.11

Short-Term Engagement Mirrors Dry January Drop-Off

The same trial highlighted a challenge familiar to Dry January participants: many users stop engaging once the initial motivation fades. This mirrors the post-challenge drop-off seen in one-month abstinence campaigns.7

A separate feasibility study of 1,082 users of the Breindebaas alcohol avoidance app found that only 38% maintained engagement beyond three weeks, and just 47% of posttest responders reported gaining more control over their drinking at the three-month follow-up.12

Retention is a Critical Predictor

Systematic reviews of treatment programs confirm the importance of engagement length. Individuals who participated in recovery interventions for more than 90 days had a 73% probability of sustained abstinence at one year, compared to 31% for those who disengaged before 30 days.13

For Dry January participants, extending engagement with apps, recovery communities, or structured programs beyond the initial 31 days dramatically increases the likelihood of sustained change.

Key Takeaways: Digital Retention

• Engagement beyond 90 days is the most powerful predictor of lasting outcomes.10 13

• Short-term participation alone (e.g., 3 weeks) is unlikely to produce durable behavior change.12

• Dry January participants should plan to continue their support through apps or communities beyond January to maintain momentum.
  
  
  

Predictors of Long-Term vs. Short-Term Success

Recovery Profiles Predict Future Outcomes

A cohort analysis examining recovery trajectories identified six distinct profiles in the first year after treatment:

1. Remission (continuous abstinence)
   
   

2. Transition to remission
   
   

3. Few long transitions
   
   

4. Many short transitions
   
   

5. Transition to relapse
   
   

6. Relapse
   
   

The “remission” group, characterized by continuous abstinence, had 94% abstinence at three-year follow-up. In contrast, the “many short transitions” group—those with frequent short-term abstinence attempts similar to Dry January—had only 12% sustained abstinence.9

Identity Shifts Support Lasting Change

Qualitative studies of long-term recovery emphasize that internal identity change is essential. Individuals in sustained recovery often described shifts in their self-concept and value systems, which frequently occurred beyond the three- to six-month mark.12

By contrast, those engaging in episodic challenges often relied on external motivations (e.g., health concerns, workplace pressures). These motivations, while helpful in the short term, failed to produce durable changes in identity or coping strategies needed for lasting sobriety.12

Key Takeaways: Long-Term vs. Short-Term Success

• Continuous abstinence in the first year predicts 94% abstinence at three years, compared to 12% for episodic abstinence attempts.9
  
  

• Identity changes and internalized coping strategies typically emerge after several months of sustained recovery.12
  
  

Early Recovery is Only the Beginning

Multi-year cohort studies highlight that physical recovery is just one piece of the puzzle. A systematic review of treatment programs demonstrated that individuals who drop out of recovery interventions before reaching 90 days are significantly more likely to relapse, reinforcing the importance of sustained engagement.13

A qualitative study of 30 individuals across different recovery stages found that early recovery (<1 year) is characterized by a focus on behavioral control and external motivations, whereas sustained recovery (1–5 years) necessitates internalized value shifts and identity changes.14 Participants in stable recovery (>5 years) consistently described a sense of emotional freedom and deeply rooted coping strategies that developed over time.

Four Stages of Psychological Recovery

The Madrid Recovery Project followed individuals with alcohol dependence for up to five years and identified four distinct stages:

1. Physical health improvement (within 1 year)
   
   

2. Emotional stabilization (1–2 years)
   
   

3. Psychological restructuring (2–4 years)
   
   

4. Sustained lifestyle and identity change (4+ years)14
   
   

Dry January primarily addresses the first stage—physical health—and overlooks the critical psychological and identity transformations that occur over time.

Why One-Month Challenges Fall Short

This timeline explains why one-month abstinence challenges rarely result in sustained change. They may offer immediate health benefits and raise awareness, but without extended support, participants often fail to build the coping skills and identity realignment required for long-term sobriety.13 14

Key Takeaways: Recovery Trajectory

• Recovery unfolds in four stages over several years, with psychological restructuring beginning after year one.14
  
  

• Dry January focuses largely on the first stage (physical health) and often misses deeper identity shifts.13 14
  
  

• Long-term recovery requires continuous support and lifestyle change far beyond a 31-day challenge.

The Role of Social and Environmental Factors in Sustained Recovery

Social Support Networks Protect Against Relapse

Recovery is rarely a solo effort. A nationally representative study found that individuals who maintained recovery for at least one year had a median recovery duration of 8 years, while those with multiple short-term abstinence attempts had a median recovery duration of just six months.15

The key differentiator? Strong social recovery support. Participants with integrated support networks—peer groups, family encouragement, and structured community programs—were significantly more likely to sustain abstinence long-term.

Environmental Triggers Are Powerful

Environmental factors also shape recovery outcomes. Systematic reviews show that living in a household where alcohol is present or spending time in high-risk environments substantially increases relapse risk.8

For Dry January participants, this means that simply abstaining for 31 days is unlikely to protect against environmental triggers if broader lifestyle changes aren’t made.

Social Recovery vs. Individual Abstinence

Structured programs focus on social recovery, helping participants build sober networks and accountability systems. Dry January, by contrast, may foster only temporary peer support and often lacks the ongoing connection critical for lasting sobriety.15

Key Takeaways: Social & Environmental Factors

• Sustained recovery is strongly associated with long-term social support.15

• Environmental triggers, like alcohol in the home, significantly increase the risk of relapse.8

• Dry January participants often lack the structured accountability needed to counteract these influences.

Addressing Additional Barriers to Long-Term Recovery

While Dry January can inspire short-term behavior change, sustained recovery requires addressing a wider range of challenges that often extend beyond the scope of a one-month abstinence challenge.

• Drop-Out Risk and Treatment Retention

Systematic reviews show that treatment dropout is one of the strongest predictors of relapse. Individuals who disengage from recovery programs early—before reaching 90 days—are far less likely to maintain sobriety.16 Participants who complete longer courses of treatment build stronger coping strategies and support networks, which directly translate into improved long-term outcomes.

• The Role of Scoping Reviews in One-Month Campaigns

Harm reduction campaigns like Dry January increase awareness but may not address the deeper factors that drive substance use. Scoping reviews suggest that these one-month challenges are most effective when paired with structured follow-up support, ongoing therapy, or participation in recovery communities.17 Without these, many participants return to pre-challenge drinking patterns once February begins.

• Persistent Barriers in Early Abstinence

Even among those who complete a one-month abstinence campaign, underlying psychological and environmental triggers often remain unaddressed. Multi-year cohort research highlights that relapse is usually tied to unresolved stressors, mental health conditions, or lack of social support.18 Programs that combine abstinence goals with lifestyle interventions—such as financial planning, mental health counseling, and relationship repair—see significantly higher recovery rates.

• Why Narrative and Lived Experience Matter

Long-term recovery is more than abstinence; it involves identity realignment and a sense of belonging. Qualitative studies of sustained recovery reveal that individuals who share their experiences in peer networks, support groups, or narrative therapy are better able to process setbacks and maintain sobriety.19

• Extending Support Beyond the First Month

Finally, app-based and digital interventions can amplify the impact of Dry January when used consistently. Engagement beyond 90 days is a critical benchmark: individuals who participate in extended digital support or structured programs have a 73% probability of one-year abstinence, compared to 31% for those who disengage before 30 days.20

Key Takeaway: Dry January can serve as a powerful springboard into recovery, but its long-term success hinges on retention, structured follow-up, and the development of coping skills that last beyond a single month.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What percentage of Dry January participants stay sober long term?

Participants in Dry January have a 62.4% completion rate for the month-long challenge, but only 36–47% maintain reduced drinking six months later. In contrast, individuals who remain abstinent for a whole year have an 87–94% chance of staying sober at three to five years.

2. Does Dry January work for heavy drinkers?

Yes, but success is less likely without added support. Participants in Dry January are typically heavier drinkers, with higher baseline AUDIT-C scores compared to the general population. For these individuals, structured support—such as apps, peer groups, or therapy—significantly improves completion and follow-up outcomes.

3. How can I increase my chances of long-term sobriety after Dry January?

Extend engagement beyond January. Cohort studies show that those who engage in apps, recovery programs, or structured support systems for 90+ days have a 73% probability of maintaining sobriety at one year, compared to 31% for those who disengage early.

4. Why is continuous abstinence better than multiple short-term attempts?

Individuals who achieve continuous abstinence in the first year have an 89% likelihood of remaining sober beyond five years. Those with episodic abstinence attempts (e.g., multiple Dry January-style challenges) have much higher relapse rates and only 12–34% long-term success.

5. What role do social and environmental factors play?

A strong social support network and a low-risk home environment significantly reduce the risk of relapse. People with integrated peer and family support have median recovery durations of eight years, compared to six months for those with multiple short-term abstinence attempts.

Conclusion

Dry January is a powerful awareness tool that helps millions of people evaluate their drinking habits. But short-term abstinence alone rarely leads to lasting sobriety.

Cohort analysis makes this clear:

• Dry January completers see measurable improvements, but fewer than half sustain reduced drinking at six months.
  
  

• Year-round recovery cohorts with continuous abstinence for one year have a 90%+ chance of long-term success.
  
  

• Sustained engagement in recovery apps, therapy, or structured peer support networks beyond January dramatically improves outcomes.
  
  

The takeaway: Don’t stop on February 1st. Whether you enjoyed Dry January or struggled to complete it, building on those 31 days with continuous support and intentional lifestyle changes is the best predictor of lasting success.

Author: Nikola Kojcinovic

Psychologist | Specialist Writer in Psychology & Behavioural Science

References

1. de Visser RO, Piper R. Short- and Longer-Term Benefits of Temporary Alcohol Abstinence During 'Dry January' Are Not Also Observed Among Adult Drinkers in the General Population: Prospective Cohort Study. Alcohol Alcohol. 2020 Jun 25;55(4):433-438. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agaa025. Erratum in: Alcohol Alcohol. 2022 Mar 12;57(2):272. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agab074. PMID: 32391879.

2. Oldham M, Kersbergen I, Cox S, Brown J, Piper R, Garnett C. Exploring changes in temporary abstinence in increasing and higher risk drinkers in England and Dry January participation in users of the Try Dry app in the UK between 2020 and 2021. BMC Public Health. 2022 Sep 26;22(1):1822. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14188-4. PMID: 36163053; PMCID: PMC9510241.

3. Kelly JF, Greene MC, Bergman BG. Beyond Abstinence: Changes in Indices of Quality of Life with Time in Recovery in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018 Apr;42(4):770-780. doi: 10.1111/acer.13604. Epub 2018 Feb 23. PMID: 29473966; PMCID: PMC5880708.

4. Garnett, C., Perski, O., Beard, E. et al. The impact of celebrity influence and national media coverage on users of an alcohol reduction app: a natural experiment. BMC Public Health 21, 30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10011-0

5. Garnett C, Perski O, Tombor I, West R, Michie S, Brown J. Predictors of Engagement, Response to Follow Up, and Extent of Alcohol Reduction in Users of a Smartphone App (Drink Less): Secondary Analysis of a Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Dec 14;6(12):e11175. doi: 10.2196/11175. PMID: 30552081; PMCID: PMC6315249.

6. Dennis ML, Scott CK, Funk R, Foss MA. The duration and correlates of addiction and treatment careers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;28 Suppl 1:S51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2004.10.013. PMID: 15797639.

7. de Ternay J, Leblanc P, Michel P, Benyamina A, Naassila M, Rolland B. One-month alcohol abstinence national campaigns: a scoping review of the harm reduction benefits. Harm Reduct J. 2022 Mar 4;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00603-x. PMID: 35246148; PMCID: PMC8895623.

8. A Terebessy, V Pongor, Z s Horváth, J-H Ivers, M Pénzes, F Dávid, F Horváth, Z s Demetrovics, R Urbán, J Rácz, Long-term effect of participation in one-month alcohol abstinence campaign on individual consumption, European Journal of Public Health, Volume 30, Issue Supplement_5, September 2020, ckaa166.472, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.472

9. Maisto SA, Hallgren KA, Roos CR, Swan JE, Witkiewitz K. Patterns of transitions between relapse to and remission from heavy drinking over the first year after outpatient alcohol treatment and their relation to long-term outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2020 Dec;88(12):1119-1132. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000615. PMID: 33370135; PMCID: PMC7900838.

10. Cunningham JA, Hendershot CS, Murphy M, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a smartphone app designed to reduce unhealthy alcohol consumption. Internet Interv. 2024;36:100747.

11. Laurens MC, Pieterse ME, Brusse-Keizer M, Salemink E, Ben Allouch S, Bohlmeijer ET, Postel MG. Alcohol Avoidance Training as a Mobile App for Problem Drinkers: Longitudinal Feasibility Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Apr 14;8(4):e16217. doi: 10.2196/16217. PMID: 32286235; PMCID: PMC7189254.

12. Stokes M, Schultz P, Alpaslan A. Narrating the journey of sustained recovery from substance use disorder. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2018 Sep 27;13(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s13011-018-0167-0. PMID: 30261888; PMCID: PMC6161338.

13. Martinelli TF, Roeg DPK, Bellaert L, Van de Mheen D, Nagelhout GE. Understanding the Process of Drug Addiction Recovery Through First-Hand Experiences: A Qualitative Study in the Netherlands Using Lifeline Interviews. Qualitative Health Research. 2023;33(10):857-870. doi:10.1177/10497323231174161

14. Kelly JF, Greene MC, Bergman BG. Beyond Abstinence: Changes in Indices of Quality of Life with Time in Recovery in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018 Apr;42(4):770-780. doi: 10.1111/acer.13604. Epub 2018 Feb 23. PMID: 29473966; PMCID: PMC5880708.

15. Kelly JF, Bergman B, Hoeppner BB, Vilsaint C, White WL. Prevalence and pathways of recovery from drug and alcohol problems in the United States population: Implications for practice, research, and policy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Dec 1;181:162-169. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.028. Epub 2017 Oct 18. PMID: 29055821; PMCID: PMC6076174.

16. Brorson HH, Ajo Arnevik E, Rand-Hendriksen K, Duckert F. Drop-out from addiction treatment: a systematic review of risk factors. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Dec;33(8):1010-24. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.07.007. Epub 2013 Jul 31. Erratum in: Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Mar;76:101796. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101796. PMID: 24029221.

17. de Ternay J, Leblanc P, Michel P, Benyamina A, Naassila M, Rolland B. One-month alcohol abstinence national campaigns: a scoping review of the harm reduction benefits. Harm Reduct J. 2022 Mar 4;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00603-x. PMID: 35246148; PMCID: PMC8895623.

18. Stokes M, Schultz P, Alpaslan A. Narrating the journey of sustained recovery from substance use disorder. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2018 Sep 27;13(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s13011-018-0167-0. PMID: 30261888; PMCID: PMC6161338.

19. Garnett, C., Crane, D., Brown, J., Kaner, E., Beyer, F., Muirhead, C., Hickman, M., de Vocht, F., Beard, E., & Michie, S. (2018). Predictors of engagement, response to follow up, and extent of alcohol reduction in users of a smartphone app (Drink Less): Secondary analysis of a factorial randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(12), e11175.

20. Brorson HH, Ajo Arnevik E, Rand-Hendriksen K, Duckert F. Drop-out from addiction treatment: a systematic review of risk factors. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Dec;33(8):1010-24. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.07.007. Epub 2013 Jul 31. Erratum in: Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Mar;76:101796. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101796. PMID: 24029221.