Controlled drinking, often advocated as a moderation approach for people with alcohol use disorders, can be highly problematic and unsuitable for those who truly suffer from alcohol addiction. Alcoholism is characterised by a loss of control over one’s drinking behaviour and an inability to consistently limit consumption. Attempting controlled drinking in such cases often reinforces the addictive cycle rather than breaking it. Some no longer attended meetings but remained abstinent with a positive view of the 12-step programme. However, they no longer found themselves in need of this help and did not express ambivalence regarding their decision to stop attending meetings.
What is Alcohol Moderation Management?
Results were not substantively changed when weekly limits were analyzed, thus we report the results using daily limits. Family involvement plays an important role too since their understanding and encouragement can fuel your determination even more on challenging days. Remember that the path towards lasting recovery isn’t linear — there will be ups and downs. But with patience, persistence and these strategies at hand – you’re better equipped than ever before on this journey towards healthier living minus harmful drinking habits. When it comes to choosing between total abstinence or limiting your intake, the answer isn’t black and white.
Is Controlled Drinking Possible for Alcoholics?
Booth, Dale, and Ansari (1984), on the other hand, found that patients did achieve their selected goal of abstinence or controlled drinking more often. Miller et al. (in press) found that more dependent drinkers were less likely to achieve CD outcomes but that desired treatment goal and whether one labeled oneself an alcoholic or not independently predicted outcome type. Conclusions Evidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care. Here we found that a number of factors distinguish non-abstainers from abstainersin recovery from AUD, including younger age and lower problem severity. Furthermore, qualityof life appeared significantly better among abstainers than non-abstainers.
Controlled drinkers
- Additionally, the system is punitive to those who do not achieve abstinence, as exemplified by the widespread practice of involuntary treatment discharge for those who return to use (White, Scott, Dennis, & Boyle, 2005).
- The current study replicated and extended recent work (Kline-Simon et al., 2013; Witkiewitz, Roos, et al., 2017) by showing that low risk drinking is achievable by a subset of patients and that low risk drinkers and abstainers do not differ on a wide variety of outcomes at three years following treatment.
The Rand study quantified the relationship between severity of alcohol dependence and controlled-drinking outcomes, although, overall, the Rand population was a severely alcoholic one in which “virtually all subjects reported symptoms of alcohol dependence” (Polich, Armor, and Braiker, 1981). In Britain and other European and Commonwealth countries, controlled-drinking therapy is widely available (Rosenberg et al., 1992). The following six questions explore https://ecosoberhouse.com/ the value, prevalence, and clinical impact of controlled drinking vs. abstinence outcomes in alcoholism treatment; they are intended to argue the case for controlled drinking as a reasonable and realistic goal. Results from this study support the need for a broader conceptualization of the clinical course of AUD (Maisto, Witkiewitz, Moskal, & Wilson, 2016) that does not rely solely on binary cutoffs to determine treatment success (e.g., abstinence).
The current review highlights a notable gap in research empirically evaluating the effectiveness of nonabstinence approaches for DUD treatment. While multiple harm reduction-focused treatments for AUD have strong empirical support, there is very little research testing models of nonabstinence treatment for drug use. Despite compatibility with harm reduction in established SUD treatment models such as MI and RP, there is a dearth of evidence testing these as standalone treatments for helping patients achieve nonabstinence goals; this is especially true regarding DUD (vs. AUD). In sum, the current body of literature reflects multiple well-studied nonabstinence approaches for treating AUD and exceedingly little research testing nonabstinence treatments for drug use problems, representing a notable gap in the literature. Current findings highlight clinically important nuances in heavy drinking during treatment. Contrary to previous methodologies that characterized all participants with any heavy drinking into one category (i.e., treatment “failures”), the findings from the current study indicate that the overall pattern of drinking is potentially more important than never exceeding an arbitrary cutoff.
These individuals are considered good candidates for harm reduction interventions because of the severity of substance-related negative consequences, and thus the urgency of reducing these harms. Indeed, this argument has been central to advocacy around harm reduction interventions for people who inject drugs, such as SSPs and safe injection facilities (Barry et al., 2019; Kulikowski & Linder, 2018). It has also been used to advocate for managed alcohol and housing first programs, which represent a harm reduction approach to high-risk drinking among people with severe AUD (Collins et al., 2012; Ivsins et al., 2019). Advocates of managed alcohol programs also note that individuals with severe AUD and structural vulnerabilities often have low interest in and utilization of abstinence-oriented treatment, and that these treatments are less effective for this population (Ivsins et al., 2019), though there is limited research examining these claims. In addition to issues with administrative discharge, abstinence-only treatment may contribute to high rates of individuals not completing SUD treatment. About 26% of all U.S. treatment episodes end by individuals leaving the treatment program prior to treatment completion (SAMHSA, 2019b).
Katie Witkiewitz
Administrative discharge due to substance use is not a necessary practice even within abstinence-focused treatment (Futterman, Lorente, & Silverman, 2004), and is likely linked to the assumption that continued use indicates lack of readiness for treatment, and that abstinence is the sole marker of treatment success. In the United Kingdom, where there is greater acceptance of nonabstinence controlled drinking vs abstinence goals and availability of nonabstinence treatment (Rosenberg et al., 2020; Rosenberg & Melville, 2005), the rate of administrative discharge is much lower than in the U.S. (1.42% vs. 6% of treatment episodes; Newham, Russell, & Davies, 2010; SAMHSA, 2019b). Despite the reported relationship between severity and CD outcomes, many diagnosed alcoholics do control their drinking.
1 Sample demographics, help-seeking and problem severity
Moderation techniques such as pacing yourself, choosing lower-alcohol options, or having alcohol-free days can be practical tools in this journey. In the 1980s and 1990s, the HIV/AIDS epidemic prompted recognition of the role of drug use in disease transmission, generating new urgency around the adoption of a public health-focused approach to researching and treating drug use problems (Sobell & Sobell, 1995). The realization that HIV had been spreading widely among people who injected drugs in the mid-1980s led to the first syringe services programs (SSPs) in the U.S. (Des Jarlais, 2017). Early attempts to establish pilot SSPs were met with public outcry and were blocked by politicians (Anderson, 1991). In 1988 legislation was passed prohibiting the use of federal funds to support syringe access, a policy which remained in effect until 2015 even as numerous studies demonstrated the effectiveness of SSPs in reducing disease transmission (Showalter, 2018; Vlahov et al., 2001). Despite these obstacles, SSPs and their advocates grew into a national and international harm reduction movement (Des Jarlais, 2017; Friedman, Southwell, Bueno, & Paone, 2001).
- We first provide an overview of the development of abstinence and nonabstinence approaches within the historical context of SUD treatment in the U.S., followed by an evaluation of literature underlying the theoretical and empirical rationale for nonabstinence treatment approaches.
- This finding supplements the numerous studies that identify lack of readiness for abstinence as the top reason for non-engagement in SUD treatment, even among those who recognize a need for treatment (e.g., Chen, Strain, Crum, & Mojtabai, 2013; SAMHSA, 2019a).
- Even moderate drinking can lead to long-term health problems such as liver disease, heart disease, and increased risk of certain cancers.
Quality of evidence evaluation
We categorised outcomes (in a slight change from the protocol10) into short (3-6 months), medium (6-12 months), and long (12-24 months) term outcomes. If a trial reported results at multiple time points, we extracted the result at the longest time point within these periods for the main analysis. To enable all studies to be included, in the main analysis we combined results reported at the nearest time point to 12 months from each study.
Leave a Reply