There has been little research on the effectiveness of different training strategies or the impact of exposure to treatment manuals alone on clinicians' ability to effectively implement empirically supported therapies. Seventy-eight community-based clinicians were assigned to 1 of 3 training conditions: review of a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) manual only, review of the manual plus access to a CBT training Web site, or review of the manual plus a didactic seminar followed by supervised casework. The primary outcome measure was the clinicians' ability to demonstrate key CBT interventions, as assessed by independent ratings of structured role plays. Statistically significant differences favoring the seminar plus supervision over the manual only condition were found for adherence and skill ratings for 2 of the 3 role plays, with intermediate scores for the Web condition.
Despite recent emphasis on integrating empirically validated treatment into clinical practice, there are little data on whether manual-guided behavioral therapies can be implemented in standard clinical practice and whether incorporation of such techniques is associated with improved outcomes. The effectiveness of integrating motivational interviewing (MI) techniques into the initial contact and evaluation session was evaluated in a multisite randomized clinical trial. Participants were 423 substance users entering outpatient treatment in five community-based treatment settings, who were randomized to receive either the standard intake/evaluation session at each site or the same session in which MI techniques and strategies were integrated. Clinicians were drawn from the staff of the participating programs and were randomized either to learn and implement MI or to deliver the standard intake/evaluation session. Independent analyses of 315 session audiotapes suggested the two forms of treatment were highly discriminable and that clinicians trained to implement MI tended to have higher skill ratings. Regarding outcomes, for the sample as a whole, participants assigned to MI had significantly better retention through the 28-day follow-up than those assigned to the standard intervention. There were no significant effects of MI on substance use outcomes at either the 28-day or 84-day follow-up. Results suggest that community-based clinicians can effectively implement MI when provided training and supervision, and that integrating MI techniques in the earliest phases of treatment may have positive effects on retention early in the course of treatment.
Objectives-To evaluate the efficacy of a computer-based version of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for substance dependence.Methods-This was a randomized clinical trial in which 77 individuals seeking treatment for substance dependence at an outpatient community setting were randomized to standard treatment or standard treatment with biweekly access to computer-based training in CBT (CBT4CBT).Results-Treatment retention and data availability were comparable across the treatment conditions. Participants assigned to the CBT4CBT condition submitted significantly more urine specimens that were negative for any type of drugs and tended to have longer continuous periods of abstinence during treatment. The CBT4CBT program was positively evaluated by participants. In the CBT4CBT condition, outcome was more strongly associated with treatment engagement than in TAU; further, completion of homework assignments in CBT4CBT was significantly correlated with outcome and a significant predictor of treatment involvement.Conclusions-These data suggest that CBT4CBT is an effective adjunct to standard outpatient treatment for substance dependence and may provide an important means of making CBT, an empirically validated treatment, more broadly available.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.