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. Thus relying on DSM criteria to define a sample of individuals in recovery mayunintentionally exclude individuals who are engaging in non-abstinent or harm reductiontechniques and making positive changes in their lives. Nordström and Berglund, like Wallace et al. (1988), selected high-prognosis patients who were socially stable. The Wallace et al. patients had a high level of abstinence; patients in Nordström and Berglund had a high level of controlled drinking. Social stability at intake was negatively related in Rychtarik et al. to consumption as a result either of abstinence or of limited intake.
Days to Relapse to Heavy Drinking
An additional concern is that the lack of research supporting the efficacy of established interventions for achieving nonabstinence goals presents a barrier to implementation. For example, in AUD treatment, individuals with both goal choices demonstrate significant improvements in drinking-related outcomes (e.g., lower percent drinking days, fewer heavy drinking days), alcohol-related problems, and psychosocial functioning (Dunn & Strain, 2013). 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). Although this research adds to growing evidence that distinct longer term recovery profiles can be identified based on both alcohol-related outcomes and functioning indicators, important questions remain about whether these profiles forecast sustained positive outcomes over longer intervals.
As a data check, all outcomes presented in the primary COMBINE manuscript were replicated prior to any model testing for this study. Additionally, drinking goal was initially analyzed as a five-level variable keeping all possible self-report responses separate. Visual inspection of these results supported our classification system (i.e., controlled drinking, conditional abstinence, and complete abstinence) in that the two possible responses for both controlled drinking and conditional abstinence clustered together across outcomes. Since drinking goal is a three-level variable, following the omnibus test, planned analyses were conducted to test differences between the three drinking goal groups for effects observed on all outcome variables. Researchers have long posited that offering goal choice (i.e., non-abstinence and abstinence treatment options) may be key to engaging more individuals in SUD treatment, including those earlier in their addictions (Bujarski et al., 2013; Mann et al., 2017; Marlatt, Blume, & Parks, 2001; Sobell & Sobell, 1995). Advocates of nonabstinence approaches often point to indirect evidence, including research examining reasons people with SUD do and do not enter treatment.
What is Controlled Drinking or Alcohol Moderation Management?
Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA022328, 2K05 AA016928, K01 AA024796, K01 AA023233, and T32 AA018108). Several said that starting drinking was preceded by concerns about whether an uncontrolled craving would occur. The number of drinks consumed per day alone is not a sufficient criterion to use when trying to diagnose someone with an Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). Alcoholism is a complex issue characterised by a range of behavioural, physical, and psychological factors. At CATCH Recovery, we understand that your journey towards overcoming addiction is deeply personal and unique to you. We believe in the power of personalised therapy, where our experts tailor a recovery plan suited to your needs and circumstances.
We first provide an overview of the development of abstinence and nonabstinence approaches within the historical context of SUD treatment in the U.S., followed by an evaluation of literature underlying the theoretical and empirical rationale for nonabstinence treatment approaches. Lastly, we review existing models of nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for SUD among adults, with a special focus on interventions for drug use, to identify gaps in the literature and directions for future research. We identify a clear gap in research examining nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for drug use disorders and suggest that increased research attention on these interventions represents the logical next step for the field. While patients with goals of complete abstinence did succeed in drinking less frequently and taking longer to relapse to heavy drinking than participants with controlled drinking or conditional abstinence goals, they drank more per drinking day, on average. This finding is consistent with an abstinence violation effect wherein abstinence oriented participants are more likely to engage in heavy drinking following an initial lapse (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). While CBI should theoretically reduce the impact of the abstinence violation effect by providing the opportunity to accurately process a lapse, the results presented herein did not support this effect (i.e., no goal × CBI interaction was observed).
As a newer iteration of RP, Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention (MBRP) has a less extensive research base, though it has been tested in samples with a range of SUDs (e.g., Bowen et al., 2009; Bowen et al., 2014; Witkiewitz et al., 2014). There is less research examining the extent to which moderation/controlled use goals are feasible for individuals with DUDs. 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.
Williams and Mee-Lee (2019) have discussed this shift in the 12-step programme and argue that current 12-step-based treatment settings promote practices that run contrary to the spirit of AA. For example, they point out that the original AA teaching endorses abstinence only for people with severe addiction disorders, which in the 12-step approach has been changed to abstinence for all members. Williams and Mee-Lee (op. cit.) also claim that AA originally taught that it was not the responsibility of group members or counsellors to give medical advice to others while there is a widespread opposition to using medically assisted treatment in the 12-step approach. Further, that the original focus on support has been replaced by a focus on denial and resistance as personality flaws. If the 12-step philosophy and AA were one option among others, the clients could make an informed choice and seek options based on their own situation and needs.
1 Non-abstinent recovery from alcohol use disorders
Thus, studies will need to emphasize measures of substance-related problems in addition to reporting the degree of substance use (e.g., frequency, quantity). 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).
Although abstainers had the best outcomes, this study suggests that moderate drinking may be considered a viable drinking goal option for some individuals who may not be willing or able to abstain completely. It was hypothesized that patients whose drinking goals were oriented towards complete abstinence would have better treatment outcomes as indexed by a greater percentage of days abstinent, longer period until relapse, and an overall higher global clinical outcome. These hypotheses were supported by the present study, such that participants with a self-reported goal of complete abstinence had better overall clinical outcomes following 16 weeks of alcohol dependence treatment. Participants with a goal of controlled drinking had the worst drinking outcomes, whereas those with a conditional abstinence goal comprise an intermediate group between complete abstinence and controlled drinking. In addition to the primary outcome variables of the COMBINE study, post hoc analysis of drinks per drinking day revealed that patients with a goal of controlled drinking reported fewer drinks per drinking day while those oriented towards complete abstinence as a goal reported greater drinks per drinking day.
- The analytical strategy for the present study was consistent with the primary COMBINE report (Anton et al., 2006).
- In the same 16-year follow-up, for those abstinent in the year before the follow-up assessment, only 18% were hospitalized compared with 43% who were non-abstinent.
- Indeed, this argument has been central to advocacy around harm reduction interventions for people who inject drugs, such as SSPs and safe injection facilities (Barry et al., 2019; Kulikowski & Linder, 2018).
- How the risks of drinking balance out this potential benefit, if it is found to be causal, for those with Type II diabetes is not yet clear.
Of the patients studied, 90% of total abstinence patients were still sober two and a half years after treatment. In the United States, for example, there are 14 grams of ethanol in a standard drink (1 beer, 1 glass of wine, or one shot of liquor) whereas in other countries like Australia a standard drink contains 10 grams of pure ethanol. Also if the study included individuals that received an intervention (i.e., intended to help people reduce or quit drinking), the intervention had to be psychosocial, meaning patients did not receive medication. They could also follow a group of drinkers over time, called a prospective cohort study, or How to Write a Goodbye Letter to Addiction Banyan Heartland even simply assess them at one single point, called a cross-sectional study. Questions on main drug and other problematic drug use were followed by the interviewer giving a brief summary of how the interview person (IP) had described their change process five years earlier.
In studies by McCabe (1986) and Nordström and Berglund (1987), CD outcomes exceeded abstinence during follow-up of patients 15 and more years after treatment. In sum, research suggests that achieving and sustaining moderate substance use after treatment is feasible for between one-quarter to one-half of individuals with AUD when defining moderation as nonhazardous drinking. While there is evidence that a subset of individuals who use drugs engage in low-frequency, non-dependent drug use, there is insufficient research on this population to determine the proportion for whom moderation is a feasible treatment goal. However, among individuals with severe SUD and high-risk drug or alcohol use, the urgency of reducing substance-related harms presents a compelling argument for engaging these individuals in harm reduction-oriented treatment and interventions. Individuals with greater SUD severity tend to be most receptive to therapist input about goal selection (Sobell, Sobell, Bogardis, Leo, & Skinner, 1992). 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.