We examined whether acceptability of nonabstinence treatment outcome goals varied as a function of a patient's severity of diagnosis (ICD-10 harmful use vs. dependence syndrome; World Health Organization, 1992), finality of outcome goal (intermediate vs. final), and type of substance (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, cannabis), among addiction treatment providers in Ukraine. We surveyed 44% of Ukrainian treatment providers (n = 446/1023; Mage = 40.4, SD = 8.6; Male = 67%; MYears Of Experience = 10.2, SD = 7.2). For tobacco use, most respondents (78%-93%) rated nonabstinence as acceptable, regardless of diagnostic severity or finality of outcome goal (i.e., intermediate, final). Most respondents also rated nonabstinence as acceptable as an intermediate or final goal for patients with harmful use of alcohol (70% to 86%) or cannabis (71% to 93%); however, nonabstinence was less commonly indicated by respondents as an intermediate goal for patients with a dependence syndrome (alcohol = 52%; cannabis = 68%). Regarding other drug use, although most rated nonabstinence acceptable as an intermediate goal for patients with harmful use of opioids (68%) or sedatives (64%), fewer rated nonabstinence acceptable as a final goal (26% to 33%), particularly for patients with a dependence syndrome (10% to 27%). Very few providers (5% to 15%) rated nonabstinence acceptable for other substances. Patients in Ukraine who wish to moderate cannabis or tobacco use will find that their provider is typically accepting of this goal; however, providers are mixed regarding whether alcohol and opioid moderation is appropriate, particularly for those with dependence. Findings support education and research efforts to better understand how provider and patient alignment regarding goals impact patient outcomes following substance use treatment in Ukraine. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Past decades have witnessed substantial progress in understanding of neurobiological mechanisms that contribute to generation of various PTSD symptoms, including intrusive memories, physiological arousal and avoidance of trauma reminders. However, the neurobiology of anhedonia and emotional numbing in PTSD, that have been conceptualized as reward processing deficits - reward wanting (anticipation of reward) and reward liking (satisfaction with reward outcome), respectively, remains largely unexplored. Empirical evidence on reward processing in PTSD is rather limited, and no studies have examined association of reward processing abnormalities and neurocircuitry-based models of PTSD pathophysiology. The manuscript briefly summarizes “state of the science” of both human reward processing, and of PTSD implicated neurocircuitry, as well as empirical evidence of reward processing deficits in PTSD. We then summarize current gaps in the literature and outline key future directions, further illustrating it by the example of two alternative explanations of PTSD pathophysiology potentially affecting reward processing via different neurobiological pathways. Studying reward processing in PTSD will not only advance the understanding of their link, but also could enhance current treatment approaches by specifically targeting anhedonia and emotional symptoms in PTSD patients.

No abstract