Citation

Morgenstern J, Frey RM, McCrady BS, Labouvie E, Neighbors CJ. J. Stud. Alcohol 1996; 57(1): 53-64.

Affiliation

Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

8747502

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined processes that mediate positive outcomes in the treatment of substance use disorders. The present study used a theory-driven approach to assess mechanisms hypothesized as curative by the traditional chemical dependency treatment approach. Several specific disease model processes such as accepting powerlessness over alcohol and two processes common to both the disease model and other treatment approaches (commitment to abstinence and intention to avoid high-risk situations) were studied. It was hypothesized that patients entering treatment would manifest high levels of denial, that there would be significant reduction of denial and increased endorsement of disease model and common processes as a result of treatment and that processes would mediate outcome. METHOD: Patients (N = 79; 54 men) in intensive traditional alcohol/drug treatment were assessed at entry into treatment, at the end of treatment and 1 month following treatment. Both self-report and clinician ratings of processes were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, results provided little support for study hypothesis. Subjects showed low levels of denial at treatment entry. Specific disease model, but not common processes, increased during treatment. Common processes, but not disease model processes, predicted relapse. Patients with higher levels of commitment to abstinence and greater intentions to avoid high-risk situations were at lower risk for relapse. However, greater commitment to Alcoholics Anonymous and belief in a Higher Power predicted reduced severity of relapse among those who did relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Findings do not support prevailing practitioner views regarding how traditional treatment works and suggest that interventions in these treatments may be mismatched to patient needs.

Language: en