3.8 Article

Examining the effects of alcoholism typology and AA attendance on self-efficacy as a mechanism of change

期刊

JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL
卷 67, 期 4, 页码 562-567

出版社

ALCOHOL RES DOCUMENTATION INC CENT ALCOHOL STUD RUTGERS UNIV
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.562

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [U10-AA08435, R01 AA015419] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Existing research indicates that increased self-efficacy to sustain abstinence is a strong causal mechanism explaining later reduction of drinking. Little is known about how mechanisms of change may differ among distinct subgroups of alcoholics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mediational role of self-efficacy on changes in drinking associated with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) attendance in Type-A and Type-B alcoholics. Method: Analysis of covariance and structural equation modeling were used to model 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-month data from Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity) participants who were classified as Type-A or Type-B alcoholics (N = 1,284; 72% male). Measures of AA attendance and percent days abstinent were taken from the Form 90. Self-efficacy was assessed with the Alcohol Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale. Results: Alcoholism typology and AA attendance were independent predictors of later self-efficacy, but there was no interaction between typology and AA attendance. Abstinence self-efficacy mediated a modest proportion of the effect of posttreatment AA attendance on later abstinence in both Type-A and Type-B alcoholics. The strength of this mediation did not differ by typology. Conclusions: Self-efficacy for abstinence has a strong direct relationship to abstinence across treatment conditions and typologies. Increases in self-efficacy mediate some of the beneficial effects of AA for Type-A and Type-B alcoholics. Further work is necessary to determine whether self-efficacy plays a different role in the recovery of Type-A versus Type-B alcoholics.

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

3.8
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