Content
Psychologically, you might be dealing with a range of emotions from guilt over past incidents to anxiety about future relapses. Also, consider your health – excessive drinking can lead to serious conditions like liver disease or heart problems. It’s heartbreaking to see loved ones caught in the grip of addiction, but there’s hope – research shows that many people find success with programmes aimed at reducing consumption. Alcohol moderation management programmes are often successful when tailored to an individual’s specific needs and circumstances. The effectiveness of these programmes can greatly vary depending on several factors such as treatment duration, individual factors, and programme challenges. Non-abstainers are younger with less time in recovery and less problem severitybut worse QOL than abstainers.
- This approach underestimates the compulsive nature of addiction and the neurological changes that occur with prolonged alcohol misuse.
- We believe in the power of personalised therapy, where our experts tailor a recovery plan suited to your needs and circumstances.
- They reject controlled drinking—drinking moderate but never excessive amounts—as a goal of treatment, believingthat such a goal is harmful to the alcoholic.
- Alcohol moderation management programmes are often successful when tailored to an individual’s specific needs and circumstances.
- A “controlled drinking controversy” followed, in which the Sobells as well as those who supported them were publicly criticized due to their claims about controlled drinking, and the validity of their research called into question (Blume, 2012; Pendery, Maltzman, & West, 1982).
4 Stepwise regressions: Quality of life (QOL)
A key aspect of abstinence is understanding and navigating through the withdrawal process – a daunting task indeed but necessary for recovery. The severity of these symptoms can vary widely depending on how much you are drinking, how frequently, and your overall physical health. Cultural perspectives on alcohol also influence our attitudes towards its use and misuse, shaping norms around what constitutes acceptable levels of consumption. While some cultures romanticise heavy drinking others promote temperance; being aware of these cultural influences can aid in reshaping your own relationship with alcohol and eliminate harmful drinking patterns. Whether you’re considering moderation or complete abstinence, this article will provide information about how to begin an Alcohol Moderation Management (AMM), its effectiveness, potential drawbacks, and its applicability to people dealing with alcoholism.
Theoretical and empirical rationale for nonabstinence treatment
Remember that every person’s journey is unique; there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for managing alcohol intake. People suffering from alcohol addiction will thrive in absolute abstinence and find solace in sobriety groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, while others will less severe drinking habits will be able to manage their relationship with alcohol through controlled moderation techniques without feeling deprived or isolated socially. Multivariable stepwise regressions (Table2) show that younger individuals were significantly more likely to benon-abstinent, and movement to the next oldest age category reduced the odds ofnon-abstinence by an average of 27%.
“It is essentially a practical approach; success is not measured by the achievement of an “ideal” drinking level or situation (i.e., abstention or low-risk levels), but by whether the introduction of the prevention measure reduces the chance that adverse consequences will occur” (NCBI). Pharmacological extinction as an outcome of treatment works because it assists in undoing, or reversing, the conditioning in the brain. When Selincro is taken prior to drinking, and alcohol is consumed, the brain will release endorphins, but receptors will block the endorphins from being able to bind to them.
Is Controlled Drinking Possible for Alcoholics?
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. Alcoholic remission many years after treatment may depend less on treatment than on posttreatment experiences, and in some long-term studies, CD outcomes become more prominent the longer subjects are out of the treatment milieu, because patients unlearn the abstinence prescription that prevails there (Peele, 1987). As the IP had a successful outcome, six months after treatment, their possibilities for CD might be better than for persons with SUD in general.
In addition, no priorstudy has examined whether quality of life differs among those in abstinent vs.non-abstinent recovery in a sample that includes individuals who have attained longperiods of recovery. Here we discuss exploratory analyses of differences between abstinentand nonabstinent individuals who defined themselves as “in recovery” fromAUDs. A better understanding of the factors related tonon-abstinent recovery will help clinicians advise patients regarding appropriatetreatment goals. Harm reduction therapy has also been applied in group format, mirroring the approach and components of individual harm reduction psychotherapy but with added focus on building social support and receiving feedback and advice from peers (Little, 2006; Little & Franskoviak, 2010). These groups tend to include individuals who use a range of substances and who endorse a range of goals, including reducing substance use and/or substance-related harms, controlled/moderate use, and abstinence (Little, 2006). Additionally, some groups target individuals with co-occurring psychiatric disorders (Little, Hodari, Lavender, & Berg, 2008).
Harm Reduction for Alcohol
There is also a need for updated research examining standards of practice in community SUD treatment, including acceptance of non-abstinence goals and facility policies such as administrative discharge. Despite the reported relationship between severity and CD outcomes, many diagnosed alcoholics do Substance abuse control their drinking. The Rand study quantified the relationship between severity of alcohol dependence and controlled-drinking outcomes, although, overall, the Rand population was a severely alcoholic one in which “virtually all subjects reported symptoms of alcohol dependence” (Polich, Armor, and Braiker, 1981). Edwards et al. (1983) reported that controlled drinking is more unstable than abstinence for alcoholics over time, but recent studies have found that controlled drinking increases over longer follow-up periods. Finney and Moos (1991) reported a 17 percent “social or moderate drinking” rate at 6 years and a 24 percent rate at 10 years.
Harm Reduction VS Abstinence
This model both accelerated the spread of AA and NA and helped establish the abstinence-focused 12-Step program at the core of mainstream addiction treatment. By 1989, treatment center referrals accounted for 40% of new AA memberships (Mäkelä et al., 1996). This standard persisted in SUD treatment even as strong evidence emerged that a minority of individuals who receive 12-Step treatment achieve and maintain long-term abstinence (e.g., Project MATCH Research Group, 1998). The WIR data do not include current dependence diagnoses, which would beuseful for further understanding of those in non-abstinent recovery. In addition, the WIRquality of life measure is based on a single question; future studies could useinstruments that detail various aspects of mental and physical functioning.
- Multivariable stepwise regressions estimating the probability of non-abstinentrecovery and average quality of life.
- 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.
- Potential correlates of non-abstinent recovery, such as demographics andtreatment history, were based on NESARC results.
Models of nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for SUD
Harm reduction provides a good method for matching these individuals at that stage and providing motivational incentives (e.g., discussing the negative consequences the person is experiencing) to motivate their desire for positive change” (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2002). 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. In addition to issues with administrative discharge, abstinence-only treatment may contribute to high rates of individuals not completing SUD treatment. About 26% of all U.S. treatment episodes end by individuals leaving the treatment program prior to treatment completion (SAMHSA, 2019b).
In 1988 legislation was passed prohibiting the use of federal funds to support syringe access, a policy which remained in effect until 2015 even as numerous studies demonstrated the effectiveness of SSPs in reducing disease transmission (Showalter, 2018; Vlahov et al., 2001). Despite these obstacles, SSPs and their advocates grew into a national and international harm reduction movement (Des Jarlais, 2017; Friedman, Southwell, Bueno, & Paone, 2001). The results of the Sobell’s studies challenged the prevailing understanding of abstinence as the only acceptable outcome for SUD treatment and raised a number of conceptual and methodological issues (e.g., the Sobell’s liberal definition of controlled drinking; see McCrady, 1985). A “controlled drinking controversy” followed, in which the Sobells as well as those who supported them were publicly criticized due to their claims about controlled drinking, and the validity of their research called into question (Blume, 2012; Pendery, Maltzman, & West, 1982). Despite the intense controversy, the Sobell’s high-profile research paved the way for additional studies of nonabstinence treatment for AUD in the 1980s and later (Blume, 2012; Sobell & Sobell, 1995). Marlatt, in particular, became well known for developing nonabstinence treatments, such as BASICS for college drinking (Marlatt et al., 1998) and Relapse Prevention (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985).