Research Analysis: Acceptance of Non-Abstinence Goals

Aaron Glogowski

Dr. Michael E. Dunn

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Davis, A. K., & Rosenberg H. (2013). Acceptance of Non-Abstinence Goals by Addiction Professionals in the United States. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(4), 1102-1109. doi: 10.1037/a0030563

Alan K. Davis and Harold Rosenberg have observed some formerly unexpected results from the use of drugs and alcohol recreationally. While the effects of excessive drug and alcohol use have been monitored and proven to be unsafe and unhealthy, recent studies have shown that a controlled use of them, otherwise referred to as non-abstinence, may bring several health benefits. Addiction professionals specializing in substance use disorders (SUD) are beginning to open their eyes to new alternatives of drug therapy for their patients. While many of these views are controversial among the professional world, many clinicians and doctors are starting to turn to the idea of non-abstinence in an attempt to help their patients more in the long term, by giving them short term goals that are easier for them to achieve. In this article, Davis and Rosenberg have catalogued their findings from a study that they conducted on the changing attitudes and ideals of professionals in many different clinical fields, in regards to the practice and implementation of non-abstinence.

Davis and Rosenberg conducted their study based on previous surveys that they found that had been created to determine people’s opinions on the idea of non-abstinence. They asked the participants about how acceptable they thought it would be to administer a suggestion of non-abstinence to patients in eight different categories. They divided these categories based on the type of substance use disorder, as well as the severity of the problem and the intended final result from the practice. All of the survey respondents were then asked (using the eight categories from the previous question) to give a proportion of patients whom they had prescribed a non-abstinence procedure to. They gave proportions in increments of 25%, from none to 100%. After this, the participants were asked to rate its acceptability in different clinical settings. The survey was concluded with questions about the personal history of the respondents, such as their work environment, and whether or not they had any past history with substance abuse.

The survey respondents were mostly Caucasian members of the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Counselors, and over half of them had previous experience with a substance use disorder. The results appeared to be in favor of non-abstinence being used as a mid-term goal on the way to giving up drug abuse, however, only 32% of respondents said it was acceptable to use non-abstinence as an end-goal. When the issue came to alcohol abuse however, 51% agreed that non-abstinence was an acceptable end-goal.

On the other hand, when it came to drug or alcohol dependence, far fewer participants agreed with non-abstinence as a procedure. The participants ranked non-abstinence acceptability for drug dependence as 27% for an intermediate procedure, and 15% for an end-goal. They found very similar results with alcohol dependence, at 28% and 16% respectively.

No matter what type of drug or severity of the problem, Davis and Rosenberg’s participants seemed to disagree with non-abstinence more often than agree with it. At least half said that they would not consider non-abstinence as a procedure in any case, regardless of the situation. Most of the respondents who were against non-abstinence thought it was ineffective, or it did not agree with the treatment philosophy that they had laid out for themselves. Some other reasons why participants disagreed with non-abstinence included things such as a fear for a medical condition that a patient could have, or worries over the legality of the substance that was being used, or the context in which the patient would be using it (such as underage drinking, or drug use in a stressful work environment).

Another key player in the determination of the acceptability of non-abstinence procedures was the environment in which professionals would be recommending the procedure. In both rehab and detoxification programs, the majority of survey participants found it to be a completely unacceptable treatment, with unacceptability ratings at 74% and 68% respectively. However, outpatient programs, DUI/DWI education programs, and independent practices saw significantly better results in terms of acceptability, with unacceptability ratings at 57%, 45%, and 28% respectively.

Davis and Rosenberg also observed various characteristics of their respondents to determine whether there was any correlation between those factors and their acceptance of non-abstinence programs. They found that participants who had history with alcohol or drug related issues tended to disagree with non-abstinence programs more than those who had no history with drugs and alcohol, however, the variation was so small that it was deemed insignificant.

In observing the results of their study, Davis and Rosenberg noticed some outside circumstances in relation to their topic of discussion. They realized in conducting the surveys that there was a possibility of bias, especially in regards to whether or not the addiction professional was willing to work with the client. They found that some professionals were simply unwilling to work with clients who were attempting to continue taking drugs or alcohol in moderation. These professionals were less likely to accept the possibility of non-abstinence treatments. These same professionals also accepted the fact that some of their clients may resort to non-abstinence procedures anyway, even if they didn’t prescribe or condone the procedure.

Davis and Rosenberg’s study, when compared with previous studies on the subject, found that American addiction professionals had become more accepting of non-abstinence in terms of drinking than they had been 20 years prior. The amount of participants who rated non-abstinence as an acceptable mid-goal for alcohol abusers is twice as many as 20 years before their survey. Davis and Rosenberg claim that the increase in acceptance could be due to several factors, including an understanding of non-abstinence as a potential method for reducing long-term harm, and a reduction of total abstinence, or the 12-step program.

Other regions still appear to be more accepting of non-abstinence in general, whether it is for a mid-goal or an end-goal. From previous studies, Rosenberg found that the United Kingdom had over an 80% acceptance rate of non-abstinence for alcohol abusers, and a 68% mid-goal as well as a 50% end-goal for alcohol dependence. Overall, even though America is slowly becoming more accepting of non-abstinence, they still have a long way to go before they reach the United Kingdom’s acceptance level.

Davis and Rosenberg realize that their study may be skewed by outside factors, such as the study being a web-based study, or an inherent bias with the way that questions were asked. With regard to the outliers, Davis and Rosenberg conclude their study with notice for those practicing non-abstinence as it is becoming more common, especially in outpatient or independent practices.

You Might Also Like
x

Hi!
I'm Alejandro!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out