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: 4.74). 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
  • Source
    • "A major problem with acute care interventions is that the improvements made during treatment are often shortlived , particularly if the individual does not have access to an alcohol and drug free-living environment that supports recovery. Many of the strategies to improve continuing care services after treatment have included ongoing case monitoring and phone based interventions (Dennis, Scott, & Funk, 2003; McLellan, McKay, Forman, Cacciola, & Kemp, 2005; McKay, 2005). However, we posit that a critically important component of successful long-term recovery is access to an alcohol-and drug-free living environment that includes social support for recovery. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although research shows treatment for alcohol and drug problems can be effective, persons without stable housing that supports recovery are at risk for relapse. Recovery residences (RRs) for drug and alcohol problems are a growing response to the need for alcohol- and drug-free living environments that support sustained recovery. Research on RRs offers an opportunity to examine how integration of these individuals into a supportive, empowering environment has beneficial impacts on substance use, housing, and other outcomes, as well as benefits for the surrounding community. Research can also lead to the identification of operations and practices within houses that maximize favorable outcomes for residents. However, research on RRs also presents significant obstacles and challenges. Based on our experiences conducting recovery home research for decades, we present suggestions for addressing some of the unique challenges encountered in this type of research.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Journal of drug issues
  • Source
    • "German study on the efficacy of outpatient treatment for alcohol use disorders found that 21% of participants relapsed within the first six months following treatment, and 46% of participants relapsed within 36 months after end of treatment (Bottlender and Soyka, 2005a, b). Aftercare or maintaining therapeutic contact following an the initial intensive treatment phase may improve long-term outcomes (McKay, 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the feasibility, acceptability and initial effectiveness of a text message-based aftercare treatment programme among alcohol outpatients. Clients treated for alcohol use disorders from three Swiss outpatient alcohol treatment centres were invited by their counsellors to participate in a study testing an interactive aftercare programme employing the use of text messages and personal phone calls. Fifty study participants were randomly assigned to either the 6-month aftercare programme (n = 25) or treatment as usual (n = 25). The intervention consisted of (a) monitoring of self-selected drinking goals at regular intervals, (b) motivational text messages to stick to self-selected drinking goals and (c) proactive telephone calls from counsellors when participants neglected to stick to their drinking goals or expressed a need for support. Follow-up interviews were conducted 6 months after randomization. Throughout the programme, participants received a total of 421 text message prompts. Out of these, participants provided valid replies to 371 (88.1%) within 48 h. Out of the 25 participants in the intervention group, 11 (44.0%) sent at least one call-for-help reply. Based on complete case data, at risk alcohol use at follow-up was 41.7% in the control group and 28.6% in the intervention group (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.16-1.95, P = 0.36). The interactive low-intensive aftercare programme was well accepted by the participants. Testing its efficacy within an adequately powered randomized controlled trial might be reasonable. © The Author 2015. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Alcohol and Alcoholism
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2014
Show more