Congruence couple therapy for alcohol use and gambling disorders with comorbidities (part I): Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nonblinded randomized trial was conducted at two Canadian provincial outpatient addiction clinics that tested the effectiveness of a systemic congruence couple therapy (CCT) versus individual-based treatment-as-usual (TAU) on nine clinical outcomes: (1) primary outcomes-alcohol use and gambling, psychiatric symptoms, and couple adjustment; (2) secondary outcomes-emotion regulation, substance use, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and life stress. Data of primary clients and partners (N = 46) were analyzed longitudinally across baseline, posttreatment (5 months), and follow-up (8 months). Alcohol use disorder (95%) and gambling disorder (5%) were in the severe range at baseline, and co-addiction was 27%. Psychiatric comorbidity was 100%, and 18% of couples were jointly addicted. Between-group comparison favored CCT in primary outcomes with medium-to-large effect sizes (Cohen's h = 0.74-1.44). Secondary outcomes were also significantly stronger for CCT (Cohen's h = 0.27-1.53). Within-group, for all primary outcomes, a significant proportion of symptomatic CCT clients and partners improved, converging with ANOVA results of large effect sizes (0.14-0.29). All secondary outcomes improved significantly in CCT with large effect sizes (0.14-0.50). TAU showed significant within-group improvement in alcohol use, other substance use, and life stress with large effect sizes (0.16-0.40). Primary clients and partners made largely equivalent improvement within CCT and within TAU. Results were triangulated with clients' satisfaction ratings and counselors' reports. Overall, significant within-group effects were detected for CCT both clinically and statistically and between-group difference favored CCT. Future trials are required to validate these promising findings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".