At the first interview all IPs were abstinent and had a positive view on the 12-step treatment, although a few described a cherry-picking attitude. As the IP had a successful outcome, six months after treatment, their possibilities for CD might be better than for persons with SUD in general. On the other hand, as the group expressed positive views on this specific treatment, they might question the sobriety goal in a lesser extent than other groups. Interviews with 40 clients were conducted shortly after them finishing treatment and five years later. All the interviewees had attended treatment programmes based on the 12-step philosophy, and they all described abstinence as crucial to their recovery process in an initial interview. The current findings align with recent proposals to move beyond relying on alcohol consumption as a central defining feature of AUD recovery.
While there are multiple such intervention approaches for treating AUD with strong empirical support, we highlight a dearth of research testing models of harm reduction treatment for DUD. We focus our review on two well-studied approaches that were initially conceptualized – and have been frequently discussed in the empirical literature – as client-centered alternatives to abstinence-based treatment. Of note, other SUD treatment approaches that could be adapted to target nonabstinence goals (e.g., contingency management, behavioral activation) are excluded from the current review due to lack of relevant empirical evidence.
However, this approach is consistent with the goal of increasing treatment utilization by reaching those who may not otherwise present to treatment. Alternatively, researchers who conduct trials in community-based treatment centers will need to obtain buy-in to test nonabstinence approaches, which may necessitate waiving facility policies regarding drug use during treatment – a significant hurdle. In the context of “harm reduction,” individuals may make positivechanges in their lives that do not include reduced alcohol use and may consider themselves“in recovery” even though their AUD status remains unchanged (Denning and Little 2012). For example, among the 2005and 2010 National Alcohol Survey respondents, 18% of current drinkers who identified as“in recovery” from alcohol problems (who do not use drugs) are DSM-IValcohol dependent, and 26% of current drinkers who also use drugs are DSM-IV alcoholdependent.
Models of nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for SUD
Regarding SUD treatment, there has been a significant increase in availability of medication for opioid use disorder, especially buprenorphine, over the past two decades (opioid agonist therapies including buprenorphine are often placed under the “umbrella” of harm reduction treatments; Alderks, 2013). Nonabstinence goals have become more widely accepted in SUD treatment in much of Europe, and evidence suggests that acceptance of controlled drinking has increased among U.S. treatment providers since the 1980s and 1990s (Rosenberg, Grant, & Davis, 2020). Importantly, there has also been increasing acceptance of non-abstinence outcomes as how to smoke moonrocks a metric for assessing treatment effectiveness in SUD research, even at the highest levels of scientific leadership (Volkow, 2020).
1 Non-abstinent recovery from alcohol use disorders
- Experts generally recommend that SUD treatment studies report substance use as well as related consequences, and select primary outcomes based on the study sample and goals (Donovan et al., 2012; Kiluk et al., 2019).
- For some, attending was just a routine, whereas others stressed that meetings were crucial to them for remaining abstinent and maintaining their recovery process.
- Many clients in the study described that the 12-step programme was the only treatment that they were offered.
- “Harm reduction” strategies, on theother hand, set more flexible goals in line with patient motivation; these differ greatlyfrom person to person, and range from total abstinence to reduced consumption and reducedalcohol-related problems without changes in actual use (e.g., no longer driving drunkafter having received a DUI).
- Recognise patterns of thought that lead to excessive drinking like stress, boredom or loneliness; addressing these underlying issues is often a key part of cutting down or cutting out alcohol.
A focus on abstinence is pervasive in SUD treatment, defining success in both research and practice, and punitive measures are often imposed on those who do not abstain. Most adults with SUD do not seek treatment because they do not wish to stop using substances, though many also recognize a need for help. This narrative review considers the need for increased research attention on nonabstinence psychosocial treatment of SUD – especially drug use disorders – as a potential way to engage and retain more people in treatment, to engage people in treatment earlier, and to improve treatment effectiveness. Despite significant empirical support for nonabstinence alcohol interventions, there is a clear gap in research examining nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for drug use disorders.
Reducing or Quitting Drinking? An Extensive Review of Health Benefits
Dr. Stanton Peele, recognized as one of the world’s leading addiction experts, developed the Life Process Program after decades of research, writing, and treatment about and for people with addictions. His work has been published in leading professional journals and popular publications around the globe. It’s not an easy road to lasting recovery, but with the right support and resources, it can definitely be a journey worth taking.
Studies which have interviewed participants and staff of SUD treatment centers have cited ambivalence about abstinence as among the top reasons for premature treatment termination (Ball, Carroll, Canning-Ball, & Rounsaville, 2006; Palmer, Murphy, Piselli, & Ball, 2009; Wagner, Acier, & Dietlin, 2018). One study found that among those who did not complete an abstinence-based (12-Step) SUD treatment program, ongoing/relapse to substance use was the most frequently-endorsed reason for leaving treatment early (Laudet, Stanick, & Sands, 2009). A recent qualitative study found that concern about missing substances was significantly correlated with not completing treatment (Zemore, Ware, Gilbert, & Pinedo, 2021). Unfortunately, few quantitative, survey-based studies have included substance use during treatment as a potential reason for treatment noncompletion, representing a significant gap in this body of literature (for a review, see Brorson, Ajo Arnevik, Rand-Hendriksen, & Duckert, 2013). Additionally, no studies identified in this review compared reasons for not completing treatment between abstinence-focused and nonabstinence treatment.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
