Is There a Case for Extended Interventions for Alcohol and Drug Use Disorders?

University of Pennsylvania and Treatment Research Institute, PA 19104, USA.
Addiction (Impact Factor: 4.74). 12/2005; 100(11):1594-610. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01208.x
Source: PubMed


To determine whether there is evidence to support the implementation of extended interventions (i.e. longer than 6 months) for individuals with alcohol or other drug use disorders.
Literature on extended behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions was reviewed, along with findings from studies of extended monitoring and monitoring paired with adjunctive counseling. Studies were identified through database searches, citations in prior reviews and examinations of recent volumes of relevant journals. Key terms were defined, and a theoretical rationale was presented for extended treatment. Several adaptive treatment studies that made use of stepped care or continuation protocols were also described.
The primary outcomes that were considered were alcohol and drug use during the intervention and post-intervention follow-ups. Other outcomes were examined when they were included in the articles reviewed.
Most of the studies in the review provided support for the effectiveness of extended interventions for alcohol and drug abusers, whether the extended care was delivered through face-to-face contact or via the telephone. These findings held across all types of interventions that were examined (e.g. behavioral treatment, pharmacotherapy and monitoring). However, only a few studies directly compared extended and standard length version of the same intervention. New developments in addiction treatment with implications for extended care models were also described and discussed.
The findings of the review indicate that maintaining therapeutic contact for extended periods of time with individuals with alcohol and other drug disorders appears to promote better long-term outcomes than 'treatment as usual', although more studies are needed that compare extended and standard versions of interventions. Achieving good compliance and successful disease management with extended interventions will probably require adaptive protocols in which the intensity of treatment can be adjusted up or down in response to changes in symptoms and functioning over time. Future directions in research on extended interventions were discussed.

Download full-text


Available from: James R Mckay,
95 Reads
  • Source
    • "Many terms associated with the concept of the division of treatment services into phases have been used interchangeably in the substance use treatment literature [52]. For instance, “aftercare” and “step-down care” have often been used to denote relatively brief, less intensive treatments beyond the primary, more intensive phase of care. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is little disagreement in the substance use treatment literature regarding the conceptualization of substance dependence as a cyclic, chronic condition consisting of alternating episodes of treatment and subsequent relapse. Likewise, substance use treatment efforts are increasingly being contextualized within a similar disease management framework, much like that of other chronic medical conditions (diabetes, hypertension, etc.). As such, substance use treatment has generally been viewed as a process comprised of two phases. Theoretically, the incorporation of some form of lower intensity continuing care services delivered in the context of outpatient treatment after the primary treatment phase (e.g., residential) appears to be a likely requisite if all stakeholders aspire to successful long-term clinical outcomes. Thus, the overarching objective of any continuing care model should be to sustain treatment gains attained in the primary phase in an effort to ultimately prevent relapse. Given the extant treatment literature clearly supports the contention that treatment is superior to no treatment, and longer lengths of stay is associated with a variety of positive outcomes, the more prudent question appears to be not whether treatment works, but rather what are the specific programmatic elements (e.g., duration, intensity) that comprise an adequate continuing care model. Generally speaking, it appears that the duration of continuing care should extend for a minimum of 3 to 6 months. However, continuing care over a protracted period of up to 12 months appears to be essential if a reasonable expectation of robust recovery is desired. Limitations of prior work and implications for routine clinical practice are also discussed.
    03/2014; 2014(3):692423. DOI:10.1155/2014/692423
  • Source
    • "Moreover, treatment of these chronic and relapsing conditions (McLellan et al., 2000) may require models of care that go beyond the existing acute treatment models typical of conventional specialty addictions treatment (McKay, 2005; Saitz et al., 2008). Primary care may need to take a more active role in the management of alcohol and other substance use disorders by developing and implementing more integrated approaches that address the medical and mental health needs of patients (McKay, 2005; McLellan et al., 2000; Saitz et al., 2008). Although primary-care-based brief interventions for unhealthy alcohol use do not have clear efficacy for patients with alcohol "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of routine alcohol screening is to identify patients who may benefit from brief intervention, but patients who also have alcohol and other substance use disorders (AUD/SUD) likely require more intensive interventions. This study sought to determine the prevalence of clinically documented AUD/SUD among VA outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use identified by routine screening. VA patients 18-90 years who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (AUDIT-C ≥3 women; ≥4 men) and were randomly selected for quality improvement standardized medical record review (6/06-6/10) were included. Gender-stratified prevalences of clinically documented AUD/SUD (diagnosis of AUD, SUD, or alcohol-specific medical conditions, or VA specialty addictions treatment on the date of or 365 days prior to screening) were estimated and compared across AUDIT-C risk groups, and then repeated across groups further stratified by age. Among 63,397 eligible patients with unhealthy alcohol use, 25% (n=2109) women and 28% (n=15,199) men had documented AUD/SUD (p<0.001). The prevalence of AUD/SUD increased with increasing AUDIT-C risk, ranging from 13% (95% CI 13-14%) to 82% (79-85%) for women and 12% (11-12%) to 69% (68-71%) for men in the lowest and highest AUDIT-C risk groups, respectively. Patterns were similar across age groups. One-quarter of all patients with unhealthy alcohol use, and a majority of those with the highest alcohol screening scores, had clinically recognized AUD/SUD. Healthcare systems implementing evidence-based alcohol-related care should be prepared to offer more intensive interventions and/or effective pharmacotherapies for these patients.
    Drug and alcohol dependence 11/2013; 135(1). DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.11.016 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "It is often after treatment that the effects of RP efforts begin to emerge. The addition of periodic monitoring of how one is doing and focusing on relapse ''warning signs'' (Stout, Rubin, Zwick, Zywiak, & Bellino, 1999), quarterly recovery management checkups to assess current status and provide rapid linkage to care if needed (Scott & Dennis, 2009; Scott, Dennis, & Foss, 2005), and ongoing continuing care services, the intensity/frequency of which is adjusted based on clients' changing clinical needs (McKay, 2005, 2006), are all ways to facilitate long-term client engagement, extend the benefits of treatment, reduce the likelihood of relapse, and intervene more rapidly if relapse does occur. RP 2005–2011 In preparing the first chapter of the second edition of the Marlatt and Gordon classic text on RP, it became clear that there was a drastic shift in the attitude toward relapse in the 20 years since the first edition. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The term “relapse prevention” drew great criticism and was not generally accepted when it was initially introduced in the early 1980s. The idea of talking with clients about the possibility of relapse was an incredibly radical idea until the pioneering work on relapse prevention by Alan Marlatt and his colleagues challenged the prevailing disease conceptualization of addictions and provided a revolutionary perspective that focused on understanding the factors contributing to and maintaining addiction. Today, relapse prevention is both a manualized treatment and a general treatment strategy that has been implemented in addiction treatment centers around the world. The theory and practice of relapse prevention has emerged as one of the most prominent and pervasive approaches in the treatment of addictive behaviors and stands as one of Alan Marlatt's most notable and longest-lasting contributions to the field. This article provides a review of the development, adaptation, and dissemination of relapse prevention over the past 30 years and also provides some ideas for the future of relapse prevention in research and treatment.
    Addiction Research and Theory 04/2012; 20(3):204-217. DOI:10.3109/16066359.2011.647133 · 1.03 Impact Factor
Show more