The British journal of clinical psychology · 2006
Cue exposure in the treatment of alcohol dependence: effects on drinking outcome, craving and self-efficacy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Loeber Sabine, Croissant Bernhard, Heinz Andreas, Mann Karl, Flor Herta
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate beneficial effects of cue exposure treatment for alcohol dependence by contrasting it with a well-established treatment approach. We hypothesized that cue exposure treatment is associated with a stronger decline of craving, a stronger increase in self-efficacy and has beneficial effects on drinking behaviour after discharge.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence were recruited from an in-patient alcohol-detoxification facility. Patients were sequentially assigned to either cue exposure or a standard cognitive-behavioural treatment. We assessed self-reports of craving and self-efficacy prior to treatment participation and at the end of treatment. Drinking behaviour was assessed in the 6-month period following discharge.
RESULTS: Both treatments were associated with a reduction of self-reported craving and an increase in self-reported measures of self-efficacy. A significant time x treatment interaction indicated a greater increase in self-reported measures of self-efficacy after cue exposure treatment. Measures of drinking behaviour showed clearly that both treatments were efficacious. Relapse rates and drinking-related variables were not significantly different for the two treatments at the 6-month follow-up. There was preliminary evidence that suggests that cue exposure therapy may be more effective for patients with severe alcohol dependence.
CONCLUSIONS: With respect to drinking behaviour, cue exposure and standard cognitive-behavioural treatment seem to be equally effective for patients with a moderate severity of alcohol dependence. Further studies are necessary to specify criteria for differential treatment indication.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence were recruited from an in-patient alcohol-detoxification facility. Patients were sequentially assigned to either cue exposure or a standard cognitive-behavioural treatment. We assessed self-reports of craving and self-efficacy prior to treatment participation and at the end of treatment. Drinking behaviour was assessed in the 6-month period following discharge.
RESULTS: Both treatments were associated with a reduction of self-reported craving and an increase in self-reported measures of self-efficacy. A significant time x treatment interaction indicated a greater increase in self-reported measures of self-efficacy after cue exposure treatment. Measures of drinking behaviour showed clearly that both treatments were efficacious. Relapse rates and drinking-related variables were not significantly different for the two treatments at the 6-month follow-up. There was preliminary evidence that suggests that cue exposure therapy may be more effective for patients with severe alcohol dependence.
CONCLUSIONS: With respect to drinking behaviour, cue exposure and standard cognitive-behavioural treatment seem to be equally effective for patients with a moderate severity of alcohol dependence. Further studies are necessary to specify criteria for differential treatment indication.