4.5 Article

Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 38-51

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2012.11.002

关键词

CBM; Addiction; Alcohol; Approach; Avoidance; AAT

资金

  1. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
  2. Behavioral Science Institute, Nijmegen
  3. VICI [453.08.001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Alcoholism is a progressive neurocognitive developmental disorder. Recent evidence shows that computerized training interventions (Cognitive Bias Modification, CBM) can reverse some of these maladaptively changed neurocognitive processes. A first clinical study of a CBM, called alcohol-avoidance training, found that trained alcoholic patients showed less relapse at one-year follow-up than control patients. The present study tested the replication of this result, and questions about mediation and moderation. Methods: 509 alcohol-dependent patients received treatment as usual (primarily Cognitive Behavior Therapy) inpatient treatment. Before and after treatment, the implicit approach bias was measured with the Alcohol Approach-Avoidance Task. Half of the patients were randomly assigned to CBM, the other half received treatment as usual only. Background variables, psychopathology and executive control were tested as possible moderating variables of CBM. One year after treatment, follow-up data about relapse were collected. Results: The group receiving CBM developed alcohol-avoidance behavior and reported significantly lower relapse rates at one-year follow-up. Change in alcohol-approach bias mediated this effect. Moderation analyses demonstrated that older patients and patients with a strong approach-bias at pretest profited most from CBM. Conclusions: CBM is a promising treatment add-on in alcohol addiction and may counter some of the maladaptive neurocognitive effects of long-term alcoholism. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据