Mechanisms and moderators of behavioural couples therapy for alcohol and substance use disorders: an updated review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Behavioural couples therapy (BCT) and alcohol behavioural couples therapy (ABCT) are couples-based interventions for substance use disorders (SUDs) that have been deemed a 'gold standard' treatment. Despite the substantial amount of promising research, there is a lack of research on the active components of treatment and treatment mechanisms and moderators. Since the most recent meta-analysis, a number of studies have been conducted that advance our understanding of the efficacy of BCT and ABCT. AIMS: The purpose of the present review was to provide an update on the current knowledge of these treatments and to investigate mediators and moderators of treatment. METHOD: A systematic search strategy of relevant databases from 2008 to 2021 identified 20 relevant articles that were coded for relevant information including study design, treatment, outcomes, as well as mechanisms and moderators. RESULTS: The results indicated that BCT and ABCT are successful in reducing alcohol and substance use for both male and female clients, dual problem couples, and for reducing post-traumatic stress symptoms and intimate partner violence. The reviewed studies discussed a number of treatment mechanisms, with the most studied mechanism being relationship functioning. Moderators included relationship functioning and patient gender. CONCLUSIONS: The results point to the need for additional research on active treatment components, mechanisms and moderators, in order to provide a more efficient and cost-effective treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".