A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders

被引:849
作者
Dutra, Lissa [1 ]
Stathopoulou, Georgia [1 ]
Basden, Shawnee L. [1 ]
Leyro, Teresa M. [1 ]
Powers, Mark B. [1 ]
Otto, Michael W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Boston Univ, Dept Psychol, Boston, MA 02215 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Objective: Despite significant advances in psychosocial treatments for substance use disorders, the relative success of these approaches has not been well documented. In this meta-analysis, the authors provide effect sizes for various types of psychosocial treatments, as well as abstinence and treatment-retention rates for cannabis, cocaine, opiate, and polysubstance abuse and dependence treatment trials. Method: With a comprehensive series of literature searches, the authors identified a total of 34 well-controlled treatment conditions - five for cannabis, nine for cocaine, seven for opiate, and 13 for polysubstance users - representing the treatment of 2,340 patients. Psychosocial treatments evaluated included contingency management, relapse prevention, general cognitive behavior therapy, and treatments combining cognitive behavior therapy and contingency management. Results: Overall, controlled trial data suggest that psychosocial treatments provide benefits reflecting a moderate effect size according to Cohen's standards. These interventions were most efficacious for cannabis use and least efficacious for polysubstance use. The strongest effect was found for contingency management interventions. Approximately one-third of participants across all psychosocial treatments dropped out before treatment completion compared to 44.6% for the control conditions. Conclusions: Effect sizes for psychosocial treatments for illicit drugs ranged from the low-moderate to high-moderate range, depending on the substance disorder and treatment under study. Given the long-term social, emotional, and cognitive impairments associated with substance use disorders, these effect sizes are noteworthy and comparable to those for other efficacious treatments in psychiatry.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 187
页数:9
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]   Community reinforcement approach in the treatment of opiate addicts [J].
Abbott, PJ ;
Weller, SB ;
Delaney, HD ;
Moore, BA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, 1998, 24 (01) :17-30
[2]   THE EFFICACY OF TREATMENTS IN REDUCING ALCOHOL-CONSUMPTION - A METAANALYSIS [J].
AGOSTI, V .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ADDICTIONS, 1995, 30 (08) :1067-1077
[3]   A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bibliotherapy for alcohol problems [J].
Apodaca, TR ;
Miller, WR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 59 (03) :289-304
[4]   BEHAVIOR-THERAPY FOR DRUG-ABUSE - A CONTROLLED TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY [J].
AZRIN, NH ;
MCMAHON, PT ;
DONOHUE, B ;
BESALEL, VA ;
LAPINSKI, KJ ;
KOGAN, ES ;
ACIERNO, RE ;
GALLOWAY, E .
BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 1994, 32 (08) :857-866
[5]   A meta-analysis comparing buprenorphine to methadone for treatment of opiate dependence [J].
Barnett, PG ;
Rodgers, JH ;
Bloch, DA .
ADDICTION, 2001, 96 (05) :683-690
[6]   Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Barth, Juergen ;
Critchley, Julia ;
Bengel, Juergen .
ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2006, 32 (01) :10-20
[7]   Effects of adding behavioral treatment to opioid detoxification with buprenorphine [J].
Bickel, WK ;
Amass, L ;
Higgins, ST ;
Badger, GJ ;
Esch, RA .
JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 65 (05) :803-810
[8]   Adding voucher-based incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes during treatment for marijuana dependence [J].
Budney, AJ ;
Higgins, ST ;
Radonovich, KJ ;
Novy, PL .
JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 68 (06) :1051-1061
[9]  
BUDNEY ST, 1998, NIH PUBLICATION
[10]   The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials [J].
Burke, BL ;
Arkowitz, H ;
Menchola, M .
JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 71 (05) :843-861