Substance Use & Addiction Journal

Harm reduction and abstinence-based substance abuse treatment can not only be integrated, but their integration is more powerful than either separately. This integration has more positive effects than either model separately on the large problem of patient retention in substance abuse treatment. This integration is particularly relevant for its utility and acceptance in the public sector. Examples from a clinic currently utilizing this model in a public hospital are presented.

To assess the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary evaluation and referral process in a prospective cohort of general hospital patients with alcohol dependence, alcohol-dependent patients were identified in the wards of the general hospital and its primary care center. They were evaluated and then referred to treatment by a multidisciplinary team; those patients who accepted to participate in this cohort study were consecutively included and followed for 6 months. Not included patients were lost for follow-up, whereas all included patients were assessed at time of inclusion, 2 and 6 months later by a research psychologist in order to collect standardized baseline patients’ characteristics, process salient features and patients outcomes (defined as treatment adherence and abstinence).

Multidisciplinary evaluation and therapeutic referral was feasible and effective, with a success rate of 43% for treatment adherence and 28% for abstinence at 6 months. Among patients’ characteristics, predictors of success were an age over 45, not living alone, being employed and being motivated to treatment (RAATE-A score < 18), whereas successful process characteristics included detoxification of the patient at time of referral and a full multidisciplinary referral meeting.

This multidisciplinary model of evaluation and referral of alcohol dependent patients of a general hospital had a satisfactory level of effectiveness. Predictors of success and failure allow the identification of subsets of patients for whom new strategies of motivation and treatment referral should be designed.

Although progress has been made in developing a scientific basis for alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI), training packages are necessary for its widespread dissemination in primary care settings. This paper evaluates a training package developed for the Cutting Back(r) SBI program. Three groups of medical personnel were compared before and after SBI training: physicians (n = 44), medical students (n = 88), and non-physicians (n = 41). Although the training effects were at times dependent on group membership, all changes were in a direction more conducive to implementing SBI. Physicians and medical students increased confidence in performing screening procedures, and students increased self-confidence in conducting brief interventions. Non-physicians perceived fewer obstacles to screening patients after training. Trained providers reported conducting significantly more SBIs than untrained providers, and these differences were consistent with patients’ reports of their providers’ clinical activity. Thus, when delivered in the context of a comprehensive SBI implementation program, this training is effective in changing providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practice of SBI for at-risk drinking.

Although evidence indicates that brief alcohol screening and interventions are effective across primary care settings, implementation of these techniques has been problematic. The primary objective of this study was to determine current practices and barriers for screening and interventions with primary care patients across randomly selected clinics in a large health care system, the Veterans Health Administration. Focus groups and mailed structured surveys were used. Results from providers indicated that 85% of patients treated in primary care received some screening for alcohol use disorders. The CAGE was the predominant screening tool. The primary clinical focus was on treatment referrals for patients who met abuse/dependence criteria. Lack of time was the most important perceived barrier to implementing screening and brief alcohol interventions for at-risk and problem drinkers. Implications for implementation of screening and intervention programs for a range of drinkers (at-risk use, problem use, abuse, dependence) are discussed.

While partner support has been found to be an important factor in smoking cessation, programs with partner training have not demonstrated improved efficacy. The goal of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of a smoking cessation treatment program that included partner support in an innovative education/therapy model similar to alcohol and drug treatment programs. Subjects included 23 smokers, 71% with a support partner. The program consisted of a smoking cessation curriculum, combined with facilitated group therapy for participants and partners, and individualized medication evaluation. Smoking abstinence was 87% at program completion and 80% at one month follow up, 100% abstinence in participants with support and 50% in participants without support (p < 0.05). Smoking Stage of Change at enrollment was: contemplation 22%, preparation 70%, and action 8%, with 87% movement toward action stage. In the present study, partner support enhanced short-term abstinence from smoking.

Fifty-six second-year family medicine residents completed a survey on their knowledge and beliefs about problem drinkers. Most residents felt responsible for screening and counseling, were confident in their clinical skills in these areas, and scored well on related knowledge questions. However, only 18% felt that problem drinkers would often respond to brief counseling sessions with physicians while 36% felt that moderate drinking was a reasonable goal for patients with severe alcohol dependence. Residents were then visited by unannounced simulated patients (SPs) presenting with alcohol-induced hypertension or insomnia. Residents detected the SP in 45 out of 104 visits. In the 59 undetected SP visits, residents asked about alcohol consumption in 47 visits (80%), discussed the relationship between alcohol use and the presenting complaint in 37 visits (63%), and recommended a specific weekly consumption in 35 visits (59%). Only 31% offered reduced drinking strategies, and most did not ask about features of alcohol dependence. These results suggest that residents have the fundamental clinical skills required to manage the problem drinker who gives a clear history and is receptive to advice. Educational efforts with residents should focus on the importance of systematic screening, taking an alcohol history under more challenging conditions, identifying the subtler presentations of alcohol problems, counselling the less receptive patient at an earlier stage of change, distinguishing the problem drinker from the alcohol-dependent patient, and offering specific behavioral strategies for the problem drinker.

The present study assessed possible predictors of relapse while in treatment and treatment completion among marijuana-dependent adolescents (N = 59) in an intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Comorbid depression was associated with an increased likelihood of relapse and a higher total number of relapses. As expected, relapse while in treatment was associated with a reduced likelihood of successfully completing the treatment program. Comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was also associated with a lower likelihood of successful program completion. These findings add to a slowly growing literature regarding adolescent substance abuse treatment, and may help clinicians identify marijuana-dependent adolescents at greater risk of relapse or noncompliance.