Percent Days Abstinent<\/h2>\n

While the pandemic seems to have triggered substantial increases in alcohol consumption, and in alcohol abuse, this is true on a macro level. More time at home may have contributed to less peer pressure to drink, less time in a \u201cwet\u201d culture, and lifestyle changes that might support a shift towards moderation. You might find yourself constantly preoccupied with thoughts about when you\u2019ll have your next drink or whether you\u2019re staying within your limits \u2013 this constant monitoring can create stress and mental exhaustion over time. Moreover, in committing to a moderate drinking plan, it\u2019s essential to recognise that slip-ups can happen and these instances should not discourage you from continuing on your path towards moderation management, but rather serve as reminders of why moderation is necessary in the first place. Your thoughts, feelings, and behaviours all play a role in how you manage your alcohol consumption.<\/p>\n

Moderation vs. Abstinence: Should You Cut Back or Quit Drinking Completely?<\/h2>\n

In the broadest sense, harm reduction seeks to reduceproblems related to drinking behaviors and supports any step in the right directionwithout requiring abstinence (Marlatt and Witkiewitz2010). Witkiewitz (2013) has suggestedthat abstinence may be less important than psychiatric, family, social, economic, andhealth outcomes, and that non-consumption measures like psychosocial functioning andquality of life should be goals for AUD research (Witkiewitz 2013). These goals are highly consistent with the growingconceptualization of `recovery’ as a guiding vision of AUD services (The Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel 2007).<\/p>\n

Levels of Care in Drug and Alcohol Rehab Programs<\/h2>\n

\n
• There is less research examining the extent to which moderation\/controlled use goals are feasible for individuals with DUDs.<\/li>\n
• Such findings would aid in refining AUD treatment and would provide more information for clinicians to improve clinical decision-making.<\/li>\n
• In order to be included in that original study, an individual had to be diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, report a minimum average weekly drinking of 16+ drinks for women and 25+ for men, and express interest in a moderation approach to changing their drinking.<\/li>\n
• The goal of a moderation program is to support a person\u2019s journey toward understanding their drinking behavior and create a safe environment for them to explore how to drink moderately.<\/li>\n
• According to Finney and Moos (1991), 37 percent of patients reported they were abstinent at all follow-up years 4 through 10 after treatment.<\/li>\n
• Finally, reduced drinking is often the focus of a harm-reduction approach, where the likely alternative is not abstinence but continued alcoholism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

  We identify a clear gap in research examining nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for drug use disorders and suggest that increased research attention on these interventions represents the logical next step for the field. A number of studies have examined psychosocial risk reduction interventions for individuals with high-risk drug use, especially people who inject drugs. In contrast to the holistic approach of harm reduction psychotherapy, risk reduction interventions are generally designed to target specific HIV risk behaviors (e.g., injection or sexual risk behaviors) without directly addressing mechanisms of SUD, and thus are quite limited in scope.<\/p>\n

  Alcohol Moderation Management: Programs and Steps to Control Drinking<\/h2>\n

  The current study was a secondary data analysis and was limited by the measures assessed in the original Project MATCH study. Most notably, there were no measures of drinking goals and all of the Project MATCH treatments were delivered under the assumption of an abstinence goal. It is unclear whether the same patterns of drinking would be found among clients with low risk drinking goals. Correspondence between an individual\u2019s drinking goal and the approach of the treatment program can affect long term outcome, so this is an important limitation (Berglund, Svensson, Berggren, Balldin, & Fahlke, 2016). Further, the aftercare sample, which was more severe at baseline was not followed for the three year follow-up assessment. It is also important to note that Project MATCH included individuals who met DSM-III-R criteria for alcohol abuse (4.6%) or dependence (95.4%), and it is unclear whether the small proportion of individuals with alcohol abuse would meet DSM-5 criteria for AUD.<\/p>\n

  Approaches to Alcoholism Treatment<\/h2>\n

  <\/p>\n

  A significant LRT and BLRT indicates a significantly better fit for a k profile model (e.g., 3 profiles) versus a k-1 profile model (e.g., 2 profiles), and a non-significant LRT and BLRT indicates that adding an additional profile does not significantly improve model fit (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthen, 2007). In addition, lower BIC and aBIC indicates a better fitting model (Nylund et al., 2007) and the smallest class of any class-solution should not contain less than 5% of the sample (Nagin, 2005). Classification precision (defined by relative entropy) was used to evaluate how well the final latent profile solution classified individuals into latent classes and values of entropy greater than .80 were considered good classification precision (Nylund et al., 2007). Our approach is not one-size-fits-all; instead, it\u2019s grounded in empathy, respect for your individuality, and a deep understanding of how alcohol abuse impacts different people in different ways. That\u2019s why our approach involves taking time to know you better, identify your triggers, and help chart a path forward that aligns with your life goals. In the present follow-up, the recovery process for clients previously treated for SUD was investigated, focusing on abstinence and CD.<\/p>\n