From Controlled Drinking to Harm Reduction, Two Decades of Pettifogging: A Reply to Marlatt et al.

Author(s):  
Irving M. Maltzman
1993 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Alan Marlatt ◽  
Mary E. Larimer ◽  
John S. Baer ◽  
Lori A. Quigley

2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia Antwerpes ◽  
Marie Costa ◽  
Marion Coste ◽  
Morgane Bureau ◽  
Gwenaelle Maradan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background ETHER (“Education THEérapeutique pour la Réduction des dommages en alcoologie” or Therapeutic education for alcohol-related harm reduction) is a multicentre community-based mixed-methods study, which aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the innovative therapeutic patient education (TPE) programme ‘Choizitaconso’ in a sample of French people with alcohol use disorder (people with AUD). Choizitaconso teaches people with AUD psychosocial skills to help them (re)establish controlled drinking and reduce alcohol-related harms. Recruitment started in October 2019. We present here the protocol of the ETHER study. Methods ETHER’s quantitative component involves a 6-month controlled intervention study which evaluates Choizitaconso’s effectiveness by comparing 30 people with AUD following the programme with a control group of 60 people with AUD not enrolled in it, using a questionnaire co-constructed by the research team and members of the people with AUD community. Thirty-four alcohol-related harms are assessed and summed to provide an individual measure of the ‘harm burden’ from consuming alcohol (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes are anticipated and internalized stigma, alcohol consumption measures, craving for alcohol, coping strategies, health-related quality of life, self-confidence to control or abstain from drinking, treatment self-regulation, anxiety and depressive symptoms, alcohol-related neuropsychological impairments, and capabilities (a measure of wellbeing in adults). Data will be collected in face-to-face and phone-based interviews at enrolment and 6 months later. Linear regression models will be used to assess the impact of the TPE programme on changes in the primary and secondary outcomes, while adjusting for other correlates and confounders. The study’s qualitative component comprises semi-structured interviews with 16 people with AUD who have already completed the TPE programme at least 6 months before the interview. Qualitative interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. Results and conclusions ETHER is the first evaluation study of an innovative TPE programme specifically designed to reduce alcohol-related harms and reach controlled drinking in France. The involvement of the people with AUD community in selecting which experienced and perceived alcohol-related harms to measure ensures that ETHER will provide healthcare staff and researchers with a relevant set of harm reduction criteria for use in future research. Finally, ETHER will provide scientific justification for implementing novel alcohol-related harm reduction approaches and champion controlled drinking as a therapeutic goal. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03954054. Registered 17 May 2019—Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03954054?cond=alcohol&cntry=FR&city=Marseille&draw=1&rank=1.


Author(s):  
Harald Klingemann ◽  
Justyna Klingemann

Abstract. Introduction: While alcohol treatment predominantly focuses on abstinence, drug treatment objectives include a variety of outcomes related to consumption and quality of life. Consequently harm reduction programs tackling psychoactive substances are well documented and accepted by practitioners, whereas harm reduction programs tackling alcohol are under-researched and met with resistance. Method: The paper is mainly based on key-person interviews with eight program providers conducted in Switzerland in 2009 and up-dated in 2015, and the analysis of reports and mission statements to establish an inventory and description of drinking under control programs (DUCPs). A recent twin program in Amsterdam and Essen was included to exemplify conditions impeding their implementation. Firstly, a typology based on the type of alcohol management, the provided support and admission criteria is developed, complemented by a detailed description of their functioning in practice. Secondly, the case studies are analyzed in terms of factors promoting and impeding the implementation of DUCPs and efforts of legitimize them and assess their success. Results: Residential and non-residential DUCPs show high diversity and pursue individualized approaches as the detailed case descriptions exemplify. Different modalities of proactively providing and including alcohol consumption are conceptualized in a wider framework of program objectives, including among others, quality of life and harm reduction. Typically DUCPs represent an effort to achieve public or institutional order. Their implementation and success are contingent upon their location, media response, type of alcohol management and the response of other substance-oriented stake holders in the treatment system. The legitimization of DUCPs is hampered by the lack of evaluation studies. DUCPs rely mostly – also because of limited resources – on rudimentary self-evaluations and attribute little importance to data collection exercises. Conclusions: Challenges for participants are underestimated and standard evaluation methodologies tend to be incompatible with the rationale and operational objectives of DUCPs. Program-sensitive multimethod approaches enabled by sufficient financing for monitoring and accompanying research is needed to improve the practice-oriented implementation of DUCPs. Barriers for these programs include assumptions that ‘alcohol-assisted’ help abandons hope for recovery and community response to DUCPs as locally unwanted institutions (‘not in my backyard’) fuelled by stigmatization.


Author(s):  
Ralf Demmel

Der dysfunktionale Konsum psychotroper Substanzen geht in der Regel mit einem Zwiespalt zwischen Abstinenzvorsatz bzw. der Absicht, den Konsum zu reduzieren, einerseits und dem Wunsch oder Zwang, den Konsum fortzusetzen, andererseits einher. Das von Miller und Rollnick (1991) beschriebene Motivational Interviewing (MI) ist ein zugleich klientenzentrierter und direktiver Behandlungsstil, der dieser Ambivalenz Rechnung tragen und somit Veränderungsbereitschaft erhöhen soll. Miller und Rollnick (1991) nennen fünf Prinzipien motivationaler Gesprächsführung: <OL><LI>Empathie, <LI>Widersprüche aufzeigen, <LI>Wortgefechte vermeiden, <LI>Nachgiebig auf Widerstand reagieren und <LI>Selbstwirksamkeit fördern.</OL> Diese Prinzipien stimmen mit den Annahmen (sozial-) psychologischer Modelle der Einstellungs- und Verhaltensänderung überein. Seit Ende der achtziger Jahre wurden vorwiegend in den angelsächsischen Ländern verschiedene motivationale Interventionen zur Sekundärprävention und Behandlung von Substanzabhängigkeit und -missbrauch entwickelt, die den von Miller und Rollnick (1991) formulierten Behandlungsprinzipien entsprechen (der Drinker’s Checkup, Motivational Enhancement Therapy, das Harm-Reduction-Programm BASICS, Brief Motivational Interviewing, Brief Negotiation sowie eine Reihe weiterer motivationaler Kurzinterventionen). Vor dem Hintergrund der bislang vorliegenden Literatur erscheint insbesondere die Durchführung standardisierter motivationaler Interventionen zur Reduktion dysfunktionalen Alkoholkonsums bzw. der negativen Konsequenzen eines fortgesetzten Alkoholmissbrauchs gerechtfertigt. Voraussetzungen einer Optimierung des Behandlungserfolgs sind neben der Identifikation zentraler Wirkmechanismen u.a. eine fortlaufende Prozess-Evaluation der Implementierung motivationaler Interventionen sowie eine evidenzbasierte Ausbildung.


1983 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 1097-1110 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Alan Marlatt
Keyword(s):  

1985 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 370-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara S. McCrady
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document