MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W80465893 · doi:10.1177/070674370505000505

Can Patients with Alcohol Use Disorders Return to Social Drinking? Yes, So What Should We Do about It?

2005· article· en· W80465893 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David C. Hodgins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstinenceHarmPerspective (graphical)Psychological interventionPsychologyHarm reductionAlcoholPsychiatryDiseaseMedicineSocial psychologyPublic healthComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polemics on the issue of whether people with alcohol use disorders can learn to moderate their alcohol use have existed for decades (1). On one side of the debate are advocates of the disease, or 12-step, model of alcohol problems, who argue that individuals suffering from the disease will inevitably lose control of their use if exposed to any amount of alcohol. According to this model, abstinence is the only way to arrest the disease's development. From the alternative perspective, several related arguments are mounted. Some proponents argue that folks require different strokes-that different types of alcohol problems require different types of responses, such as abstinence for some problems and moderated drinking for other types. Other clinicians focus on the benefits of adopting a harm-reduction orientation toward alcohol problems. This approach focuses less on the amount of alcohol consumed and more on helping individuals decrease the harms related to alcohol use. Although abstinence may be desirable, it is not the primary measure of successful outcome. In this paper, I briefly review the arguments supporting the feasibility of nonabstinent drinking outcomes and argue further that we should shift the debate from whether nonabstinent goals are feasible to how we can best integrate such a perspective into our treatment systems. If we expand the range of our treatment options, we may encourage more people with alcohol use disorders to seek treatment. Finally, I discuss what interventions are appropriate to incorporate in this expansion, if we accept that nonabstinence goals are appropriate for some people. Several lines of evidence point to the validity of nonabstinence treatment goals for some people with alcohol use problems. First, as early as the 1940s, follow-up studies of individuals suffering from alcoholism have revealed that a proportion of patients, albeit a small group, describe successful and sustained nonabstinence outcomes (2). The most widely cited of these studies is the Rand report from the mid-1980s, which followed up a large US national sample of patients from abstinence-oriented inpatient alcohol treatment programs. Remarkably, about 18% of these patients were described as drinking in a problem-free fashion after 4 years (3). A second line of evidence comes from treatment evaluation studies that have included nonabstinent drinking goals. Amborgne recently reviewed these studies (2) and identified 12 that consistently found that some patients were able to sustain posttreatment nonproblem drinking over follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 8 years. Several patient characteristics are found to predict successful nonabstinent outcomes. These include younger age, relatively better social and psychological stability, being employed, being female, and having less severe alcohol dependence (4), as well as having a stronger belief in one's ability to moderate drinking (5). Several medical factors, including pregnancy and liver disease, preclude a nonabstinent goal. Why, then, have our treatment systems not fully embraced these data and promoted interventions that allow nonabstinent outcome goals? The diverse political and economic barriers to system change have been discussed elsewhere (6) and are not limited to the substance abuse field. However, one relevant factor is, of course, the experience and intuition of individual clinicians. As clinicians, we are uncomfortable with incorrectly predicting an individual's outcome. Unfortunately, none of the patient characteristics that predict successful moderation are robust enough to be used by clinicians planning individual patient treatment. Rather, a probabilistic model fits-the more indictors present in an individual, the more likely it is that the goal is appropriate. Even so, the prediction is not perfect: a particular patient with all the right indicators for successful moderation (for example, a younger, socially and psychologically stable woman with a mild alcohol problem) might better quit than cut back on her drinking. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→