4.4 Article

Utilizing Recovery Management Checkups to shorten the cycle of relapse, treatment reentry, and recovery

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 325-338

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.12.005

关键词

chronic; Recovery Management Checkups; cycle of relapse; treatment reentry and recovery; recovery management; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past several decades, a growing body of evidence suggests that a subset of substance users suffers from what appears to be a more chronic condition, whereby they cycle through periods of relapse, treatment reentry, incarceration, and recovery, often lasting several years. Using data from quarterly interviews conducted over a 2-year period in which 448 participants were randomly assigned to either an assessment only condition or to a Recovery Management Checkup (RMC) condition, we looked at the frequency, type, and predictors of transitions between points in the relapse, treatment reentry, and recovery cycle. The results indicated that about one-third of the participants transitioned from one point in the cycle to another each quarters 82% transitioned at least once, 62% multiple times. People assigned to RMC were significantly more likely to return to treatment sooner and receive more treatment. The probability of transitioning to recovery was related to the severity, problem orientation, desire for help. self-efficacy. self-help involvement, and recovery environment at the beginning of the quarter and the amount of treatment received during the quarter. These findings clearly support the wide spread belief that addiction is a chronic condition as well as demonstrating the need and effectiveness of post-discharge monitoring and checkups. The methods in this study also provide a simple but replicable method for learning more about the multiple pathways that individuals travel along before achieving a prolonged state of recovery. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.4
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