Lessons from Scott County — Progress or Paralysis on Harm Reduction?

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.

Download Full-text

Motivational Interviewing: Ein Literaturüberblick

SUCHT - Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis / Journal of Addiction Research and Practice ◽

10.1024/suc.2001.47.3.171 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 47 (3) ◽

pp. 171-188 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Ralf Demmel

Keyword(s):

Motivational Interviewing ◽

Harm Reduction ◽

Motivational Enhancement Therapy ◽

Motivational Enhancement ◽

Motivationale Interventionen

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 Drinkers 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.

Download Full-text