Combatting the Abstinence Violation Effect

Models of nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for drug use have been developed and promoted by practitioners, but little empirical research has tested their effectiveness. This resistance to nonabstinence treatment persists despite strong theoretical and empirical arguments in favor of harm reduction approaches. The past 20 years has seen growing acceptance of harm reduction, evidenced in U.S. public health policy as well as SUD treatment research.

As the foregoing review suggests, validation of the reformulated RP model will likely progress slowly at first because researchers are only beginning to evaluate dynamic relapse processes. Currently, the dynamic model can be viewed as a hypothetical, theory-driven framework that awaits empirical evaluation. Testing the model’s components will require that researchers avail themselves of innovative assessment techniques (such as EMA) and pursue cross-disciplinary collaboration in order to integrate appropriate statistical methods. Irrespective of study design, greater integration of distal and proximal variables will aid in modeling the interplay of tonic and phasic influences on relapse outcomes. As was the case for Marlatt’s original RP model, efforts are needed to systematically evaluate specific theoretical components of the reformulated model [1].

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Substance use Disorders

In viewing relapse as a common (albeit undesirable) event, emphasizing contextual antecedents over internal causes, and distinguishing relapse from treatment failure, the RP model introduced a comprehensive, flexible and optimistic alternative to traditional approaches. Multiple theories of motivation for behavior change support the importance of self-selection of goals in SUD treatment (Sobell et al., 1992). For example, Bandura, who developed Social Cognitive Theory, posited that perceived choice is key to goal adherence, and that individuals may feel less motivation when goals are imposed by others (Bandura, 1986). Miller, whose seminal work on motivation and readiness for treatment led to multiple widely used measures of SUD treatment readiness and the development of Motivational Interviewing, also argued for the importance of goal choice in treatment (Miller, 1985). Drawing from Intrinsic Motivation Theory (Deci, 1975) and the controlled drinking literature, Miller (1985) argued that clients benefit most when offered choices, both for drinking goals and intervention approaches.

Relapse poses a fundamental barrier to the treatment of addictive behaviors by representing the modal outcome of behavior change efforts [1-3]. For instance, twelve-month relapse rates following alcohol or tobacco cessation attempts generally range from 80-95% [1,4] and evidence suggests comparable relapse trajectories across various classes of substance use [1,5,6]. Preventing relapse or minimizing its extent is therefore a prerequisite for any attempt to facilitate successful, long-term changes in addictive behaviors. It is now believed that relapse prevention strategies must be taught to the individual during the course of therapy, and various strategies to enhance patient involvement and adherence such as increasing patient responsibility, promoting internal attributions to events are to be introduced in therapy.

Empirical findings relevant to the RP model

Because of heightened overdose risk, treatment providers can offer naloxone and overdose prevention training to all clients, even those whose “drug of choice” does not include opioids. Rather than communicating pessimism about a client’s potential to recover, these overdose prevention measures acknowledge the existence of the AVE and communicate that safety is more important than maintaining perfect abstinence. More information on overdose prevention strategies in treatment settings is available here. John’s key responsibilities include maintaining the day-to-day operations from both a clinical and housing perspective. John’s goal is to monitor every department to ensure proper policies and procedures are in place and client care is carried out effortlessly. John joined Amethyst as a behavioral health technician where he quickly developed strong personal relationships with the clients through support and guidance.

Other behavioral characteristics that have been identified in patients with bulimia nervosa include impulsivity and mood lability, and it is possible that these traits may contribute to the onset or perpetuation of symptoms in this disorder. In one model, for example, an individual attempting to follow a reduced calorie diet may experience an abstinence violation effect following ingestion of modest amounts of snack foods, leading to a transient inclination to abandon dietary restraint altogether. Factors that may lead to dieting, such as parental or childhood obesity, have been identified as potential risk factors for the development of this disorder.

Does 12-Step Contribute to the AVE?

For example, some believe abstinence may reduce testosterone levels; research often finds the opposite. One study found that in men, testosterone levels peaked after 7 days of abstaining from sex. Some people conflate the terms celibacy and abstinence; however, there are some key differences between the two concepts. There is a large literature on self-efficacy and its predictive relation to relapse or the maintenance of abstinence. In order to cope or avoid these damaging thoughts, these individuals turn back to drugs or alcohol to numb the pain. Before any substance use even occurs, clinicians can talk to clients about the AVE and the cognitive distortions that can accompany it.

The dynamic model further emphasizes the importance of nonlinear relationships and timing/sequencing of events. For instance, in a high-risk context, a slight and momentary drop in self-efficacy could have a disproportionate impact on other relapse antecedents (negative affect, expectancies) [8]. Furthermore, the strength of proximal influences on relapse may vary based on distal risk factors, with these relationships becoming increasingly nonlinear as distal risk increases [31]. For example, one could imagine a situation whereby a client who is relatively https://ecosoberhouse.com/ committed to abstinence from alcohol encounters a neighbor who invites the client into his home for a drink. Feeling somewhat uncomfortable with the offer the client might experience a slight decrease in self-efficacy, which cascades into positive outcome expectancies about the potential effects of having a drink as well as feelings of shame or guilt about saying no to his neighbor’s offer. Importantly, this client might not have ever considered such an invitation as a high-risk situation, yet various contextual factors may interact to predict a lapse.

Given the abstinence focus of many SUD treatment centers, studies may need to recruit using community outreach, which can yield fewer participants compared to recruiting from treatment (Jaffee et al., 2009). However, this approach is consistent with the goal of increasing treatment utilization by reaching those who may not otherwise present to treatment. Alternatively, researchers who conduct trials in community-based abstinence violation effect treatment centers will need to obtain buy-in to test nonabstinence approaches, which may necessitate waiving facility policies regarding drug use during treatment – a significant hurdle. In sum, research suggests that achieving and sustaining moderate substance use after treatment is feasible for between one-quarter to one-half of individuals with AUD when defining moderation as nonhazardous drinking.