Author: Gary Jackson

Controlled Drinking vs Abstinence Addiction Recovery

Individual factors like personal motivation, mental health status, and support system also play a key role in determining how well someone will fare within a programme. After transcribing the interviews, the material was analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke, 2006) by coding the interview passages according to what was brought up both manually and by using NVivo (a software package for qualitative data analysis). After relistening to the interviews and scrutinizing transcripts, the material was categorized and summarized by picking relevant parts from each transcript. By iteratively analysing and compiling these in an increasingly condensed form, themes were created at an aggregated level, following a process of going back and forth between transcripts and the emerging themes as described by Braun and Clarke (op. cit.). In the present article, descriptions of abstinence and CD and views on and use of the AA and the 12-step programme were analysed.

Days to Relapse to Heavy Drinking

The Swedish treatment system has been dominated by total abstinence as the goal, although treatment with CD as a goal exists (e.g., Agerberg, 2014; Berglund et al., 2019). We thank the study authors who provided data and extra information for this review, including the Project MATCH executive committee for providing the Project MATCH public dataset for the secondary analysis. The authors acknowledge that the reported results are, in whole or in part, based on analyses of the Project MATCH Public Data Set.

Latent Profiles at the 3-Year Follow-Up

The debate between abstinence and non-abstinence approaches, specifically controlled drinking (CD), has remained a controversial topic in the alcoholism field since the 1960s (Davies, 1962; Miller & Caddy, 1977). As far as treatment outcomes are considered, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes successful CD. It has been suggested that CD, and more specifically a reduction in heavy drinking, has a number of clinical benefits that should be taken into consideration when discussing drinking goals (Gastfriend, Garbutt, Pettinati, & Forman, 2007). Although abstainers had the best outcomes, this study suggests that moderate drinking may be considered a viable drinking goal option for some individuals who may not be willing or able to abstain completely. Perhaps the most notable gap identified by this review is the dearth of research empirically evaluating the effectiveness of nonabstinence approaches for DUD treatment.

Abstinence or Moderation? Drinking Goals in a Web-based Intervention for Veterans

In sum, the current body of literature reflects multiple well-studied nonabstinence approaches for treating AUD and exceedingly little research testing nonabstinence treatments for drug use problems, representing a notable gap in the literature. While patients with goals of complete abstinence did succeed in drinking less frequently and taking longer to relapse to heavy drinking than participants with controlled drinking or conditional abstinence goals, they drank more per drinking day, on average. This finding is consistent with an abstinence violation effect wherein abstinence oriented participants are more likely to engage in heavy drinking following an initial lapse (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985).

1 Non-abstinent recovery from alcohol use disorders

This suggests that individuals with non-abstinence goals are retained as well as, if not better than, those working toward abstinence, though additional research is needed to confirm these results and examine the effect of goal-matching on retention. Given data demonstrating a clear link between abstinence goals and treatment engagement in a primarily abstinence-based SUD treatment system, it is reasonable to hypothesize that offering nonabstinence treatment would increase overall engagement by appealing to those with nonabstinence goals. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that this may be the case; for example, a qualitative study of nonabstinence drug treatment in Denmark described a client saying that he would not have presented to abstinence-only treatment due to his goal of moderate use (Järvinen, 2017). Additionally, in the United Kingdom, where there is greater access to nonabstinence treatment (Rosenberg & Melville, 2005; Rosenberg & Phillips, 2003), the proportion of individuals with opioid use disorder engaged in treatment is more than twice that of the U.S. (60% vs. 28%; Burkinshaw et al., 2017). Researchers have long posited that offering goal choice (i.e., non-abstinence and abstinence treatment options) may be key to engaging more individuals in SUD treatment, including those earlier in their addictions (Bujarski et al., 2013; Mann et al., 2017; Marlatt, Blume, & Parks, 2001; Sobell & Sobell, 1995). Advocates of nonabstinence approaches often point to indirect evidence, including research examining reasons people with SUD do and do not enter treatment.

  1. You’re not alone, and it’s important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to managing alcohol use.
  2. Rychtarik et al. found that treatment aimed at abstinence or controlled drinking was not related to patients’ ultimate remission type.
  3. This article has not been reviewed or endorsed by the Project MATCH Research Group and does not necessarily represent the opinions of its members, who are not responsible for the contents.
  4. If supported in future studies, these results could be used to inform treatment planning for patients with alcoholism.

We excluded studies on pregnant women, participants with chronic liver disease, participants with HIV/AIDS, and patients with liver transplant owing to the specific clinical considerations of these populations. Conclusions Evidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care.

Is Controlled Drinking Possible for Alcoholics?

The descriptions on how the tools from treatment were initially used to deal with SUD and were later used to deal with other problems in the lives of IPs can be put in relation to the differentiation between abstinence and sobriety suggested by Helm (2019). While abstinence refers to behaviour, sobriety goes deeper and concerns the roots of the problem (addiction) and thereby refers to mental and emotional aspects. Differentiating these concepts opens up for recovery without necessarily having strong ties with the recovery community and having a life that is not (only) focused on recovery but on life itself. Also, defining sobriety as a further/deeper step in the recovery process offers a potential for 12-step participants to focus on new goals and getting involved in new groups, not primarily bound by recovery goals. Further, describing recovery as a process also implies paying attention to contributing factors outside the treatment context, such as the importance of work, family and friends.

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). Like the Sobells, Marlatt showed that reductions in drinking and harm were achievable in nonabstinence treatments (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2002). In addition to shaping mainstream addiction treatment, the abstinence-only 12-Step model also had an indelible effect on the field of SUD treatment research. Most scientists who studied SUD treatment believed that abstinence was the only acceptable treatment goal until at least the 1980s (Des Jarlais, 2017).

While AUD treatment studies commonly rely on guidelines set by government agencies regarding a “low-risk” or “nonhazardous” level of alcohol consumption (e.g., Enggasser et al., 2015), no such guidelines exist for illicit drug use. Thus, studies will need to emphasize measures of substance-related problems in addition to reporting the degree of substance use (e.g., frequency, quantity). A common objection to CD is that most people fail to return to “normal” drinking, and highlighting those able to drink in a controlled way might attract people into relapse, with severe medical and social consequences.

For example, Bandura, who developed Social Cognitive Theory, posited that perceived choice is key to goal adherence, and that individuals may feel less motivation when goals are imposed by others (Bandura, 1986). Miller, whose seminal work on motivation and readiness for treatment led to multiple widely used measures of SUD treatment readiness and the development of Motivational Interviewing, also argued for the importance of goal choice in treatment (Miller, 1985). Drawing from Intrinsic Motivation Theory (Deci, 1975) and the controlled drinking literature, Miller (1985) argued that clients benefit most when offered choices, both for drinking goals and intervention approaches. A key point in Miller’s theory is that motivation for change is “action-specific”; he argues that no one is “unmotivated,” but that people are motivated to specific actions or goals (Miller, 2006). It is important to highlight that most of the studies cited above did not provide goal-matched treatment; thus, these outcomes generally reflect differences between individuals with abstinence vs. non-abstinence goals who participated in abstinence-based AUD treatment.