Advocates of nonabstinence approaches often point to indirect evidence, including research examining reasons people with SUD do and do not enter treatment. This literature – most of which has been conducted in the U.S. – suggests a strong link between abstinence goals and treatment entry. For example, in one study testing the predictive validity of a measure of treatment readiness among non-treatment-seeking people who use drugs, the authors found that the only item in their measure that significantly predicted future treatment entry was motivation to quit using (Neff & Zule, 2002).
While attesting to the influence and durability of the RP model, the tendency to subsume RP within various treatment modalities can also complicate efforts to systematically evaluate intervention effects across studies (e.g., [21]). Elucidating the “active ingredients” of CBT treatments remains an important and challenging goal. Consistent with the RP model, changes in coping skills, self-efficacy and/or outcome expectancies are the primary putative mechanisms by which CBT-based interventions work [126]. One study, in which substance-abusing individuals were randomly assigned to RP or twelve-step (TS) treatments, found that RP participants showed increased self-efficacy, which accounted for unique variance in outcomes [69]. Further, there was strong support that increases in self-efficacy following drink-refusal skills training was the primary mechanism of change.
The Abstinence Violation Effect and Overcoming It
The problem is that abstinence violation effect magnifies these weaknesses and prevents us from seeking solutions. Our first instinct should be to figure out a relapse prevention plan that addresses the faults we have identified. This is an important measure, but it doesn’t do much for relapse prevention if we don’t forge a plan to deal with these disturbances when they arise.
One critical goal will be to integrate empirically supported substance use interventions in the context of continuing care models of treatment delivery, which in many cases requires adapting existing treatments to facilitate sustained delivery [140]. Given its focus on long-term maintenance of treatment gains, RP is a behavioral intervention that is particularly well suited for implementation in continuing care contexts. Many treatment centers already provide RP as a routine component of aftercare programs. However, it is imperative that insurance providers and funding entities support these efforts by providing financial support for aftercare services. It is also important that policy makers and funding entities support initiatives to evaluate RP and other established interventions in the context of continuing care models. In general, more research on the acquisition and long-term retention of specific RP skills is necessary to better understand which RP skills will be most useful in long-term and aftercare treatments for addictions.
Does 12-Step Contribute to the AVE?
Limit violations were predictive of responses consistent with the AVE the following day, and greater distress about violations in turn predicted greater drinking [80]. Findings also suggested that these relationships varied based on individual differences, suggesting the interplay of static and dynamic factors in AVE responses. Evidence further suggests that practicing routine acts of self-control abstinence violation effect can reduce short-term incidence of relapse. For instance, Muraven [81] conducted a study in which participants were randomly assigned to practice small acts self-control acts on a daily basis for two weeks prior to a smoking cessation attempt. Compared to a control group, those who practiced self-control showed significantly longer time until relapse in the following month.
The Minnesota Model involved inpatient SUD treatment incorporating principles of AA, with a mix of professional and peer support staff (many of whom were members of AA), and a requirement that patients attend AA or NA meetings as part of their treatment (Anderson, McGovern, & DuPont, 1999; McElrath, 1997). 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). Many clients report that activities they once found pleasurable (e.g., hobbies and social interactions with family and friends) have gradually been replaced by drinking as a source of entertainment and gratification. Therefore, one global self-management strategy involves encouraging clients to pursue again those previously satisfying, non-drinking recreational activities.
4. Consequences of abstinence-only treatment
In contrast to the former group of people, the latter group realizes that one needs to “learn from one’s mistakes” and, thus, they may develop more effective ways to cope with similar trigger situations in the future. The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques in addictions research has increased dramatically in the last decade [131] and many of these studies have been instrumental in providing initial evidence on neural correlates of substance use and relapse. In one study of treatment-seeking methamphetamine users [132], researchers examined fMRI activation during a decision-making task and obtained information on relapse over one year later. Based on activation patterns in several cortical regions they were able to correctly identify 17 of 18 participants who relapsed and 20 of 22 who did not. Functional imaging is increasingly being incorporated in treatment outcome studies (e.g., [133]) and there are increasing efforts to use imaging approaches to predict relapse [134].
