This suggests that treatment experiences and therapist input can influence participant goals over time, and there is value in engaging patients with non-abstinence goals in treatment. In addition to shaping mainstream addiction treatment, the abstinence-only 12-Step model also had an indelible effect on the field of SUD treatment research. Most scientists who studied SUD treatment believed that abstinence was the only acceptable treatment goal until at least the 1980s (Des Jarlais, 2017). Abstinence rates became the primary outcome for determining SUD treatment effectiveness (Finney, Moyer, & Swearingen, 2003; Kiluk, Fitzmaurice, Strain, & Weiss, 2019; Miller, 1994; Volkow, 2020), a standard which persisted well into the 1990s (Finney et al., 2003). Little attention was given to whether people in abstinence-focused treatments endorsed abstinence goals themselves, or whether treatment could help reduce substance use and related problems for those who did not desire (or were not ready for) abstinence.
Alcohol Moderation Management: Programs and Steps to Control Drinking
Additionally, individuals are most likely to achieve the outcomes that are consistent with their goals (i.e., moderation vs. abstinence), based on studies of both controlled drinking and drug use (Adamson, Heather, Morton, & Raistrick, 2010; Booth, Dale, & Ansari, 1984; Lozano et al., 2006; Schippers & Nelissen, 2006). The current review highlights a notable gap in research empirically evaluating the effectiveness of nonabstinence approaches for DUD treatment. While multiple harm reduction-focused treatments for AUD have strong empirical support, there is very little research testing models of nonabstinence treatment for drug use. Despite compatibility with harm reduction in established SUD treatment models such as MI and RP, there is a dearth of evidence testing these as standalone treatments for helping patients achieve nonabstinence goals; this is especially true regarding DUD (vs. AUD).
Alcohol Addiction Treatment at CATCH Recovery
The most recent national survey assessing rates of illicit drug use and SUDs found that among individuals who report illicit drug use in the past year, approximately 15% meet criteria for one or more DUD (SAMHSA, 2019a). About 10% of individuals who report cannabis use in the past year meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder, while this proportion increases to 18%, 19%, 58%, and 65% of those with past year use of cocaine, opioids (misuse), methamphetamine, and heroin, respectively. These data suggest that non-disordered drug use is possible, even for a substantial portion of individuals who use drugs such as heroin (about 45%). However, they do not elucidate patterns of non-disordered use over time, nor the likelihood of maintaining drug use without developing a DUD.
Approaches to Alcoholism Treatment
This means addressing not just the physical symptoms of addiction but also the psychological, emotional, social, and spiritual aspects as well. Such approaches could include cognitive behavioural therapy to address mental health issues that may contribute to excessive drinking; yoga or meditation for stress relief; art therapy for expressing emotions; faith-based support groups for spiritual growth among others. You might find yourself constantly preoccupied with thoughts about when you’ll have your next drink or whether you’re staying within your limits – this constant monitoring can create stress and mental exhaustion over time. Moreover, in committing to a moderate drinking plan, it’s essential to recognise that slip-ups can happen and these instances should not discourage you from continuing on your path towards moderation management, but rather serve as reminders of why moderation is necessary in the first place.
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). While AUD treatment studies commonly rely on guidelines set by government agencies regarding a “low-risk” or “nonhazardous” level of alcohol consumption (e.g., Enggasser et al., 2015), no such guidelines exist for illicit drug use. Thus, studies will need to emphasize measures of substance-related problems in addition to reporting the helpstay reviews degree of substance use (e.g., frequency, quantity).
The past 20 years has seen growing acceptance of harm reduction, evidenced in U.S. public health policy as well as SUD treatment research. Thirty-two states now have legally authorized SSPs, a number which has doubled since 2014 (Fernández-Viña et al., 2020). 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 a metric for assessing treatment effectiveness in SUD research, even at the highest levels of scientific leadership (Volkow, 2020). Many advocates of harm reduction believe the SUD treatment field is at a turning point in acceptance of nonabstinence approaches.
- Witkiewitz (2013) has suggestedthat abstinence may be less important than psychiatric, family, social, economic, andhealth outcomes, and that non-consumption measures like psychosocial functioning andquality of life should be goals for AUD research (Witkiewitz 2013).
- Despite the growth of the harm reduction movement globally, research and implementation of nonabstinence treatment in the U.S. has lagged.
- Relapse Prevention (RP) is another well-studied model used in both AUD and DUD treatment (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985).
- Also, defining sobriety as a further/deeper step in the recovery process offers a potential for 12-step participants to focus on new goals and getting involved in new groups, not primarily bound by recovery goals.
These results suggest that carefully considering drinking goals at treatment entry represents an important aspect of the initial assessment. As noted by Adamson and colleagues (2010), treatment goals may change over the course of treatment and must be continuously evaluated in order to promote the best possible outcomes. A common objection to CD is that most people fail to return to “normal” drinking, and highlighting those able to drink in a controlled way might attract people into relapse, with severe medical and social consequences. On the other hand, previous research has reported that a major reason for not seeking treatment among alcohol-dependent people is the perceived requirement of abstinence (Keyes et al., 2010; Wallhed Finn et al., 2014, 2018). Moreover, strictly abstinence-oriented organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), implying abstinence as the treatment aim, and describing individuals with drinking problems as suffering from a disease might lead to the (unintended) stigmatization of people with substance use disorder (SUD) (van Amsterdam and van den Brink, 2013). In turn, stigma and shame have been reported as a reason for not seeking treatment (Probst et al., 2015).
