Acknowledging the key role of Max Glatt in the development of the Jellinek curve: And the enduring relevance of his model of recovery from problem drinking

Influenced by Morton Jellinek’s (1946) ‘Phases in the Drinking History of Alcoholics’, Max Glatt (1958) developed a holistic model of problem drinking, a ‘V-shaped chart’, detailing the symptomatic descent to alcohol dependency and a subsequent pathway of rehabilitation towards recovery and a meaningful and purposeful life. However, shortly after Glatt’s concept was published, a misnomer emerged, whereby Glatt’s creation became known as the ‘Jellinek Curve’. The literature suggests that the role of both scholars in the development of the Curve has never been fully investigated, and so the current article addresses this oversight. Understandably, many will be unfamiliar with the concept but during the 1960s/70s and for some time afterwards it was extremely influential. Both Glatt’s and Jellinek’s expositions in this endeavour were based on data harvested from members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and the current article recognizes the symbiotic relationship between all three parties. The ‘Matthew Effect’, whereby eminent scientists with a high profile tend to get greater credit than scientists who have contributed equally to the same area of investigation but are less well known, may provide an explanation for the misnomer’s genesis. While Jellinek’s Phases model of the descent towards dependent drinking has been surpassed by more recent models of alcohol addiction, the Curve’s recovery slope, created solely by Glatt, remains relevant, with many of the steps outlined on his recovery slope present in contemporary models of recovery. Evidence suggests that Glatt’s model of recovery, in tandem with its application through his NHS model of residential detoxification and rehabilitation (that he began developing in the 1950s), was responsible for a successful two-year follow-up rate of 45% for problem drinkers. Currently, however, the recovery journeys of problem drinkers completing treatment are not being followed and consequently, their recoveries are not being measured and evaluated over time. To address this oversight, comprehensive and effective treatment and recovery models need to take a longer-term approach to post-acute research and support.