4.2 Article

Cue exposure in the treatment of alcohol dependence: Effects on drinking outcome, craving and self-efficacy

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 515-529

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1348/014466505X82586

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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-detoxifl cation 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.

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

4.2
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