Therapy preference and treatment outcome in clients with mild to moderate alcohol dependence

References

• Van Audenhove C, Vertommen H. A negotiation approach to intake and treatment choice. J Psychother Integ 2000; 10: 287 – 99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgerson DJ, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ 1998;316:360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown SA. Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment outcome after a one-year follow-up. J Stud Alcohol 1985; 46: 304–8.
   Google Scholar
• Jones BT, McMahon J. Negative and positive alcohol expectancies as predictors of abstinence after discharge from a residential treatment program: a one-month and three-month follow-up study in men. J Stud Alcohol 1994; 55: 543–8.
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield SF, Hufford MR, Vagge LM, Muenz LR, Costello ME, Weiss RD. The relationship of self-efficacy expectancies to relapse among alcohol dependent men and women: a prospective study. J Stud Alcohol 2000;61: 345– 51.
   Google Scholar
• Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three- year drinking outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998;22: 1300 – 11.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon KE, Annis HM. Outcome and efficacy expectancy in the prediction of post-treatment drinking behaviour. Br J Addict 1990; 85: 659–65.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgins DC, el-Guebaly N, Armstrong S, Dufour M. Implications of depression on outcome from alcohol dependence: a 3-year prospective follow-up. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1999; 23: 151–7.
   Google Scholar
• Heather N, Rollnick S, Bell A. Predictive validity of the Readiness to Change Questionnaire. Addiction 1993;88: 1667– 77.
   Google Scholar
• McMahon J, Jones BT. Post-treatment abstinence survivor- ship and motivation for recovery: The predictive validity of the readiness to change (RCQ) and negative alcohol expectancy (NAEQ) questionnaires. Addict Res 1996;4: 161– 76.
   Google Scholar
• Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH post- treatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol 1997;58: 7 – 29.
   Google Scholar
• Ojehagen A, Berglund M. Acceptance, attrition, and outcome in an outpatient treatment programme for alco- holics: a comparison between a randomized and a non- randomized process-outcome study. Eur Arch Psychiatr Clin Neurosci 1992; 242: 82–4.
   Google Scholar
• Sterling RC, Gottheil E, Glassman SD, Weinstein SP, Serota RD. Patient treatment choice and compliance. Data from a substance abuse treatment program. Am J Addict 1997; 6: 168–76.
   Google Scholar
• McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, O’Brien CP. An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients. The Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis 1980; 168: 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Kludt CJ, Perlmuter L. Effects of control and motivation on treatment outcome. J Psychoact Drugs 1999; 31: 405–14.
   Google Scholar
• Hiller ML, Knight K, Broome KM, Simpson DD. Legal pressure and treatment retention in a national sample of long-term residential programs. Crim Justice Behav 1998; 25: 463 – 81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiCenso CB, Paull M. Treating the alcohol dependent persons: predictors of treatment completion from a court order perspective. Alcohol Treat Q 1999; 17: 79–85.
   Google Scholar
• Stark MJ. Dropping out of substance abuse treatment: a clinically oriented review. Clin Psychol Rev 1992;12: 93– 116.
   Google Scholar
• Wells-Parker E. Lessons from research with drinking and driving offenders. Alcohol Health Res World 1994;18: 302– 6.
   Google Scholar
• Brown TG, Seraganian P, Tremblay J, Annis H. Matching substance abuse aftercare treatments to client characteris- tics. Addict Behav 2002; 27: 585–604.
   Google Scholar
• Sellman JD, Sullivan PF, Dore GM, Adamson SJ, MacEwan I. A randomized controlled trial of motivational enhancement therapy (MET) for mild to moderate alcohol dependence. J Stud Alcohol 2001; 62: 389–96.
   Google Scholar
• Adamson SJ, Sellman JD. Drinking goal selection and treatment outcome in out-patients with mild – moderate alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001; 20: 351–9.
   Google Scholar
• APA. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Nurnberger JI Jr, Blehar MC, Kaufmann CA et al. Diagnostic interview for genetic studies. Rationale, unique features, and training. NIMH Genetics Initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994; 51: 849–59.
   Google Scholar
• Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In: Litten RZ, Allen JP, eds. Measuring alcohol consumption. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc., 1992: 41–72.
   Google Scholar
• MacEwan I. Upper limits for responsible drinking. Report of the Working Party on Upper Limits for Responsible Drinking. Wellington: Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Miller WR, Zweben A, DiClemente CC, Rychtarik RG. Motivational enhancement therapy manual: a clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence: NIAAA Project MATCH Monograph Series Vol. 2. DHHS Publications No. (ADM) 92 – 1894, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The global assessment scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976;33: 766– 71.
   Google Scholar