Article

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: 4.6). 12/2005; 100(11):1594-610. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01208.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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

Full-text

Available from: James R Mckay, Aug 20, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • 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 · 3.28 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
  • Source
    • "substance use disorders consistently demonstrates that drug problems often require treatment over the course of several months [10]. Recent research also shows that drug-related ED use is increasing [11], resulting in billions of dollars in costs to the public health care system [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drug treatment can be effective in community-based settings, but drug users tend to underuse these treatment options and instead seek services in emergency departments (EDs) and other acute care settings. The goals of this study were to describe prevalence and correlates of drug-related ED visits. This study used data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, which is a nationally representative survey of 43,093 US residents. The overall prevalence of drug-related ED visits among lifetime drug users was 1.8%; for those with a lifetime drug use disorder, 3.7%. Persons with heroin dependence and inhalant dependence had the highest rates of ED visits, and marijuana dependence was associated with the lowest rates. Multivariate analyses revealed that being socially connected (ie, marital status) was a protective factor against ED visits, whereas psychopathology (ie, personality or mood disorders) was a risk factor. Significant variability exists for risk of ED use for different types of drugs. These findings can help inform where links between EDs with local treatment programs can be formed to provide preventive care and injury-prevention interventions to reduce the risk of subsequent ED visits.
    The American journal of emergency medicine 09/2011; 29(7):704-10. DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2010.01.044 · 1.15 Impact Factor
Show more