Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2023
The Phenotype of Recovery X: Associations between delay discounting, regulatory flexibility, and remission from substance use disorder.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dwyer Candice L, Tegge Allison N, Craft William H, Tomlinson Devin C, Athamneh Liqa N, Bickel Warren K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Delay discounting (DD) and self-regulation are important predictors of substance use disorder (SUD) outcomes. Further, regulatory flexibility (RF; i.e., selecting, monitoring, and adapting coping techniques based on contextual demands) is related to psychological resilience. However, studies have yet to examine associations among DD, RF, and remission from SUDs among individuals in recovery.
METHODS: Individuals (N = 148) in SUD recovery completed the Context Sensitivity Index (CSI), the Flexible Regulation of Emotional Expression (FREE) Scale, and the Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma (PACT) Scale to assess RF and, an $1000 hypothetical reward Adjusting Amount Delay Discounting Task. The study considered individuals to be in remission from SUD if they did not endorse any SUD DSM-5 symptom other than craving (except tobacco use disorder) in the past three months. The study team used t-tests to examine differences in RF and DD by remission status. Univariate linear regressions were used to examine the relationship between RF and DD. Finally, mediation models examined the dynamic relationship among DD, RF, and remission status.
RESULTS: Remitted individuals (n = 82) had significantly lower DD (i.e., greater preference for larger, later rewards) rates (p < .001) and higher context sensitivity (p < .001) and coping flexibility (p < .001). The study found significant negative associations between DD and context sensitivity (p = .008), coping flexibility (p = .002), and emotion regulation flexibility (p < .001). Finally, context sensitivity (p = .023) and coping flexibility (p = .009) mediated the relationship between DD and SUD remission.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that individuals in recovery with broader temporal windows can better identify contextual demands and flexibly cope, contributing to improved SUD recovery outcomes.
METHODS: Individuals (N = 148) in SUD recovery completed the Context Sensitivity Index (CSI), the Flexible Regulation of Emotional Expression (FREE) Scale, and the Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma (PACT) Scale to assess RF and, an $1000 hypothetical reward Adjusting Amount Delay Discounting Task. The study considered individuals to be in remission from SUD if they did not endorse any SUD DSM-5 symptom other than craving (except tobacco use disorder) in the past three months. The study team used t-tests to examine differences in RF and DD by remission status. Univariate linear regressions were used to examine the relationship between RF and DD. Finally, mediation models examined the dynamic relationship among DD, RF, and remission status.
RESULTS: Remitted individuals (n = 82) had significantly lower DD (i.e., greater preference for larger, later rewards) rates (p < .001) and higher context sensitivity (p < .001) and coping flexibility (p < .001). The study found significant negative associations between DD and context sensitivity (p = .008), coping flexibility (p = .002), and emotion regulation flexibility (p < .001). Finally, context sensitivity (p = .023) and coping flexibility (p = .009) mediated the relationship between DD and SUD remission.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that individuals in recovery with broader temporal windows can better identify contextual demands and flexibly cope, contributing to improved SUD recovery outcomes.