Consistency of posttreatment alcoholics' drinking patterns.

Watson, Charles G.; Pucel, John

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.53.5.679

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, there is ample empirical evidence that problem drinkers change from one drinking status to another during posttreatment followup (e-g., Watson & Pucel, 1985;Yates & Norris, 1981). Performing several assessments of drinking during a longitudinal study would provide the researcher with an estimate of the stability of a subject's drinking status.…”

Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other studies, however, CD was sustained during follow-up periods of at least 1 year (e.g., Miller & Baca, 1983;Pettinati, Sugarman, DiDonato, & Maurer, 1982;Polich et al, 1981;Vaillant & Milofsky, 1982). Instability of drinking is not confined to CD in any case, and many alcoholics' drinking patterns-whether controlled, abstinent, or uncontrolled-change several times within a matter of months or years (e.g., Watson & Pucel, 1985;Yates & Norris, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of controlled drinking by alcoholics and problem drinkers.

Rosenberg¹

1997

Addictive Behaviors: Readings on Etiology, Prevention, and Treatment.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few issues have sparked as much controversy in alcohol studies as the question of controlled drinking (CD). Specifically, must all alcoholics or problem drinkers be counseled to abstain from alcohol for the rest of their lives, or can some of them-by their own efforts, with therapy, or seemingly spontaneously -drink in a moderate, controlled, and harm-free manner? Several definitions are necessary before we take up this question.The first question is, what is CD? Definitions of CD have varied, but usually have included some limit on the amount and frequency of consumption (e.g., maximum of 3 oz of alcohol per day) and the condition that the drinking results in neither signs of dependence (e.g., withdrawal syndrome) nor social, legal, or health problems (Heather & Tebbutt, 1989).

show abstract

Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Prediction of controlled drinking by alcoholics and problem drinkers.

Rosenberg¹

1997

Addictive Behaviors: Readings on Etiology, Prevention, and Treatment.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the quantity and frequency of drinking often change during follow-up (J. R. Taylor, 1987; Watson & Pucel, 1985; Yates & Norris, 1981), success per se (i.e., either controlling one's drinking or abstaining) has been predictive of continued success. Maisto et al (1980) found that “days functioning well” (controlled plus abstinent days) during the final 6 months of a 2-year follow-up was predicted by the same index in the previous 6 months.…”

Section: Other Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other studies, however, CD was sustained during follow-up periods of at least 1 year (e.g., Miller & Baca, 1983; Pettinati, Sugarman, DiDonato, & Maurer, 1982; Polich et al, 1981; Vaillant & Milofsky, 1982). Instability of drinking is not confined to CD in any case, and many alcoholics' drinking patterns—whether controlled, abstinent, or uncontrolled—change several times within a matter of months or years (e.g., Watson & Pucel, 1985; Yates & Norris, 1981). Uncontrolled drinking is a frequent occurrence following periods of both abstinence and CD, and periods of relapse are likely whether an alcoholic attempts CD or abstinence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of controlled drinking by alcoholics and problem drinkers.

Rosenberg

1993

Psychological Bulletin

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research was reviewed on the following factors as predictors of controlled drinking (CD) by alcoholics and problem drinkers: severity of dependence, client attitudes and beliefs about controlled drinking and abstinence, previous treatment, pretreatment drinking style, psychological and social stability, demographic characteristics, family history of drinking, referral source, and posttreatment adjustment and drinking. No single personal characteristic has been consistently predictive, but there is convincing evidence that a lower severity of dependence and a persuasion that CD is possible are associated with CD after treatment. Prediction of CD might be improved by an approach that assesses the influence of three types of variables: enduring personal characteristics, changeable social and psychological characteristics, and transient precipitating events.

show abstract

“…Indeed, the length of follow-up in treatment outcome studies varies from several weeks to several years (see reviews by Ivanoff & Stem, 1992;Nicholson & Berman, 1983;Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980). For problems which have a chronic and cyclical course with periods of relapse and recovery, such as substance abuse, longer follow-up periods are necessary (Brown, Vik, & Creamer, 1989;Farrington, 1992;Green & Hergert, 1989;Kazdin, 1987;Milkman, Weiner, & Sunderwith, 1984;Vaillant & Milofsky, 1982;Watson & Purcell, 1985). Consequently, some have argued that drug and alcohol abuse treatment outcome studies should include follow-up assessments at least 1 year after termination (Davidge & Forman, 1988;Lambert, Shapiro, & Bergin, 1986;O'Farrell, 1992).…”

Section: Next Previous Firstmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Family Therapy for Drug Abuse: Promising but Not Definitive

Liddle

Dakof

1995

J Marital Family Therapy

171

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug abuse is an enormous public health problem with consequences not only for individuals using drugs but also for families, communities, and society. Moreover, research evidence and clinical experience agree that drug abuse is one of the more dificult problems to treat. Despite considerable research on the connection between family factors and drug use, and the existence of family therapy models for drug abuse, comparatively few controlled eficacy studies have been conducted. This article presents a critical review of controlled treatment outcome research in the area of family therapy for drug abuse in both adults and adolescents. A number of studies from different clinical research groups demonstrate that different versions of family intervention can engage and retain drug users and their families in treatment, signijicantly reduce drug use and other related problem behaviors, and enhance particular domains ofprosocialfunctioning. Moreover, a smaller number of comparative eficacy studies have shown family therapy to be more effective than nonfamily therapies. Family therapy of adolescent drug abuse is more developed at present than family therapy of adult drug abuse. Although the results of the reviewed studies are promising, a blanket confirmation of family therapy's eficacy for drug abuse cannot be made at this time because of the relatively small number of studies and the noted methodological limitations of the studies published to date. Nonetheless, substantial progress in this clinical research area has occurred, and i f research and funding support continue or can expand, significant breakthroughs in the treatment of drug abuse with family-based treatments are possible.

show abstract

Consistency of posttreatment alcoholics' drinking patterns.

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Prediction of controlled drinking by alcoholics and problem drinkers.

Prediction of controlled drinking by alcoholics and problem drinkers.

Prediction of controlled drinking by alcoholics and problem drinkers.

Efficacy of Family Therapy for Drug Abuse: Promising but Not Definitive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About