4.4 Article

Enhancing brief cognitive-behavioral therapy with motivational enhancement techniques in cocaine users

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 97-101

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.05.006

Keywords

cognitive-behavioral therapy; motivational enhancement therapy; cocaine

Funding

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [K05 AA014715-04, K05 AA014715, K02 AA000171-10] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [P50 DA009241, K05 DA000457-08, P50 DA009241-140014, K05 DA000457] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We investigated the impact of enhancing brief cognitive-behavioral therapy with motivational interviewing techniques for cocaine abuse or dependence, using a focused intervention paradigm. Methods: Participants (n = 74) who met current criteria for cocaine abuse or dependence were randomized to three-session cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or three-session enhanced CBT (MET+ CBT), which included an initial session of motivational enhancement therapy (MET). Outcome measures included treatment retention, process measures (e.g., commitment to abstinence, satisfaction with treatment), and cocaine use. Results: Participants who received the MET+ CBT intervention attended more drug treatment sessions following the study interventions, reported significantly greater desire for abstinence and expectation of success, and they expected greater difficulty in maintaining abstinence compared to the CBT condition. There were no differences across treatment conditions on cocaine use. Conclusions: These findings offer mixed support for the addition of MET as an adjunctive approach to CBT for cocaine users. In addition, the study provides evidence for the feasibility of using short-term studies to test the effects of specific treatment components or refinements on measures of therapy process and outcome. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available