LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Orford, Jim; Hodgson, Ray; Copello, Alex; Krishnan, Mya; de Madariaga, Marta; Coulton, Simon (2009)
Publisher: Oxford Univ Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HM, HV5001
Aim: The aim of this study was to report and contrast the aspects of two therapies considered by clients and therapists to be most and least useful. \ud Method: In the Uk Alcohol Treatment (UKATT), 742 clients were treated by 49 therapists with up to three sessions of motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or up to eight sessions of social behaviour and network therapy (SBNT). After each treatment session, clients and therapists were asked to independently complete two sentences, one inviting a statement about the 'most useful' and other about the 'least useful' thing that had happened during the session.\ud Results: The proportion of 'most useful' sentences completed was greater than the proportion of 'least useful' and equality so for MET and SBNT. The content of comments was significantly different for the two treatments: more comments on social aspects followed SBNT and more motivational comments followed MET, with larger numbers of comments following both treatments that were more general. Clients more often completed 'most useful' sentences than therapists and less often completed 'least useful sentences. There were a number of differences in the content of their comments: notably more 'most useful'client comments about talking to their therapists, and more therapist comments about client engagement.\ud Conclusions: MET and SBNT left distinct impressions on the participants immediately following treatment sessions, adding to the evidence that they are different treatments, and hence deepening the mystery about why outcomes followisng the two treatments were so similar (UKATT Research Team. (2005) Br Med J 331:541-58).
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anton R, O'Malley S, Ciraulo D et al. (2006) Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence. The COMBINE study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 295:2003-17.
    • Luborsky L, Rosenthal R, Diguer L et al. (2002) The dodo bird verdict is alive and well-mostly. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 9:3-33.
    • Moos RH. (2007) Theory-based active ingredients of effective treatments for substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend 88:109- 21.
    • Orford J. (2008) Asking the right questions in the right way: the need for a shift in research on psychological treatments for addiction. Addiction 103:875-85.
    • Orford J, Hodgson R, Copello A et al. on behalf of the UKATT Research Team. (2006b) The client's perspective on change during treatment for an alcohol problem: qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews in the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial. Addiction 101:60-8.
    • Orford J, Hodgson R, Copello A et al. on behalf of the UKATT Research Team. (2008) To what factors do clients attribute change? Content analysis of follow-up interviews with clients of the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). J Subst Abuse Treat 36:49-58.
    • Orford J, Kerr C, Alwyn T et al. on behalf of the UKATT Research Team. (2006a) Why people enter treatment for alcohol problems: findings from UKATT pre-treatment interviews. J Subst Use 11:161-76.
    • Orlinsky DE, Grawe K, Parks BK. (1994) Process and outcome in psychotherapy-Noch Einmal. In Bergin AE and Garfield SL. (eds). Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. New York: Wiley, 270-376.
    • Project MATCH Research Group. (1997) Matching alcoholism treatment to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol 58:7-29.
    • Project MATCH Research Group. (1999) A study to remember: response of the Project MATCH Research Group to commentaries. Addiction 94:66-9.
    • Tober G, Clyne W, Finnegan O et al. (2008) Validation of a scale for rating the process of delivery of psycho-social treatments for alcohol dependence and misuse: the UKATT process rating scale (PRS). Alcohol Alcohol 43:675-82.
    • UKATT Research Team. (2001) United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT): hypotheses, design and methods. Alcohol Alcohol 36:11-21.
    • UKATT Research Team. (2005a) Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). Br Med J 331:541-4.
    • UKATT Research Team. (2005b) Cost-effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). Br Med J 331:544-58.
    • Wampold B. (2001) The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods and Findings. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Williamson E, Smith M, Orford J et al. (2007) Social behaviour and network therapy for drug problems: evidence of benefits and challenges. Addict Disord Treat 6:167-79.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article