Abstract
Background: The study presented here sheds light on factors promoting or impeding change in the Polish treatment system, by focusing on the specific case of reduced risk drinking (RRD) as treatment objective and modality. More specifically, treatment providers’ perceptions of implementation, barriers and potential chances of adoption of RRD in practice were explored.
Method: The 26 alcohol addiction professionals working in 13 outpatient facilities in different parts of Poland took part in four focus group interviews conducted from June to August 2015. The computer assisted qualitative data analysis followed an inductive–deductive procedure. Initially, the transcripts were inductively coded ‘sentence by sentence’ in order to capture the meaning of data. Afterwards, the codes were linked with the deductive, theoretical categories.
Results: In their assessment addiction therapists drew upon their individual experience and organizational context, but also stressed system and societal aspects. Five types of barriers to the adoption of RRD programs emerged from the qualitative data analysis: (a) Potential conflicts between RRD and abstinence-oriented programs; (b) Professional routines and paradigms; (c) Information deficits and knowledge requirements; (d) Feasibility and implementation problems and (e) Evaluation issues.
Conclusions: The typology of barriers to reduced risk drinking identified among treatment providers will inform policy efforts to plan changes and to anticipate dynamics within the addiction treatment systems more successfully and reduce the treatment gap.
Acknowledgements
The study presented in the article (NCT-PL: Nowe Cele Terapeutyczne w Polskim Lecznictwie Uzależnień/The New Therapeutic Objectives in the Polish Alcohol Treatment) was funded by The State Agency for the Prevention of Alcohol Related Problems (PARPA), (grant agreement no. 502-002-14022).
Disclosure statement
Authors have no connection with the tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical or gaming industries. There have been no involvements that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or in the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated.