Salazar GML, Martínez MKI, Barrientos CV

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 469-477
PDF size: 123.73 Kb.

ABSTRACT

There are two main problems reported in the intervention programs addressing teenage substance users: 1) limited admission to treatment, 2) high drop out rates.
Institutions in other countries working with teenage substance users report a dropout rate between 50 and 70% after the first session at early treatment stages. In Mexico, a study on dropout rates in a brief intervention program found rates of 53%, with teenagers dropping out between the first and second session.
In the addictive behavior field, there is a factor involved in the lack of acceptance for treatment and the dropout rate during treatment. This factor is the perception of addiction treatment programs and teenagers’ readiness for change their consumption.
Particularly, it was proposed that the lack of agreement over the actions that the therapist and the user develop, jointly and individually, affects the admission to and permanence of users in treatment programs.
In addition, Yahne & Miller consider that most of the people can be admitted to the program without any willingness or with a limited willingness to change their consumption. This suggests the need for strategies that increase teenagers’ interest in modifying their substance consumption.
That is why this study reports the results of an evaluation of an induction to treatment session as a part of the «Brief Intervention Program for Adolescents that Begin Alcohol and Drug Use» [BIPA]. This induction to treatment session uses some of the strategies from motivational interviewing that also includes the change stages of Prochaska and DiClemente. These strategies are based on four steps: a) give teenagers feedback on the impact of alcohol use on their lives according to the results of a previous evaluation, b) give direct counseling about the importance of change, c) suggest alternatives to achieve this change, d) describe the BIPA characteristics and clarify the therapist’s and teenagers’ role in the treatment.
If they follow these steps, teenagers increase their readiness to change. In addition, this induction to treatment session may help to clarify the perception about the activities that both therapist and the teenager must develop during the intervention program.
The objectives of the current study are: 1) Evaluate the impact of the induction to treatment session on the therapist and teenagers’ perception, 2) Evaluate the impact of the induction to treatment session on the stage of teenagers’ readiness willingness to change, and 3) Determine the effects of the induction to treatment session on teenage alcohol users’ acceptance and permanence.
In this study, a pre-post test design without a control group was used in a sample of 28 volunteer teenage students from Mexico City.
The sample was non probabilistic and included volunteer participants meeting the following criteria: a) teenage alcohol users drinking more than 4 drinks on more than 5 occasions in the last 6 months; b) reports on alcohol-related problems without physical symptoms of alcohol dependence according to DSM-IV-TR; c) being aged between 14 to 18 years old; d) being a student.
This study took place at the «Guillermo Dávila» Center of Psychological Services and the Acasulco Center of the UNAM Psychology Faculty, as well as at a secondary and high school in Mexico City.
The instruments used were: Initial Interview, Readiness to Change Scale, and the Perception of Therapist’s and Teenager’s Role Questionnaire.
The principal characteristics related to teenage consumption were: the overall sample reported alcohol consumption as a preeminent substance; the majority reported moderate alcohol consumption (1-2 occasions per month) over the past 90 days, although 80% reported large amounts of alcohol (more than 5 drinks per occasion). On the other hand, the three main problems reported by teenagers were related to attending parties where alcohol was necessarily consumed, family or friend’s arguments and consequences related to affective situations.
Data analysis showed statistical differences before and after the induction according to perceptions about the therapist’s role t(27) = -2.803, p ‹.05, but not about the teenagers’ role t(27) = -1.793, p ›.05, although the average group analysis before the induction session showed that the participants had a clear perception of the ctivities they perform during the program. On the other hand, the data analysis did not show significant statistical differences in the recognition t(27) = .000, p ›.05 and action t(27) = -1.839, p ›.05 subscales, both from the readiness for change scale.
As for the acceptance and permanence percentage in the treatment, 100% of the teenagers agreed to join the treatment program after the induction session, 93% only attended the first session of treatment, and 62% finished their participation in the treatment program.
Based on these results, the induction to treatment session represents a component that clarifies teenagers’ perception about the therapist’s actions during the treatment. Although there were no significant differences in the readiness to change scale, the induction session is thought to have helped in the teenagers’ admission to treatment in addition to promoting progress to action.
The induction session can also be one of the variables that contributed to acceptance of and permanence in treatment among teenagers.
However, it is important to evaluate the effect that the induction to treatment session had by comparing it with a control group. It is also essential to consider the evaluation of the induction to treatment session with teenage drug users, as well as teenagers that do not go to school.
Despite the limited sample, the results observed suggest the relevance of this kind of components in treatment for teenage substance users.

REFERENCES

1. Hartnoll R. Research and the help-seeking process. Br J Addict 1992;87:429-437.

2. Klingemann HK-H. Environmental influences which promote or impede change in substance behaviour. En: Edwards G, Lader M (eds). Addiction: Processes of change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1994.

3. Stark M, Campbell B. Personality, drug use, and early attrition from substance abuse treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1988;14:475-485.

4. Stark M. Dropping out of substance abuse treatment: A clinically oriented review. Cli Psychol Rev 1992;12:93-116.

5. Sobell L, Sobell M, Toneatto T. Recovery from alcohol problems without treatment. En: Heather N, Miller WR, Greeley J (eds). Self-control and the Addictive Behaviours. New York: Maxwell MacMillan; 1992.

6. Aubrey L, Toscova R. Treatment characteristics of substance abusing adolescents with comorbid affective or behavior disorder. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1994;18:507 (resumen).

7. Bernal P. La deserción a un tratamiento para adolescentes consumidores de alcohol y otras drogas. Tesis de licenciatura. México: Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2004.

8. Cunningham J, Sobell L, Sobell M, Agrawal A, Toneatto T: Barriers to treatment: Why alcohol and drug abusers delay or never seek treatment. Addict Behav 1993;18:347-353.

9. De Leon G, Melnick G, Kressel D, Jainchill N. Circumstances, motivation, readiness, and suitability (the CMRS Scales): Predicting retention in therapeutic community treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1994;20:495-514.

10. Donovan D, Rosengren D. Motivation for behavior change and treatment among substance abusers. En: Tucker J, Donovan D, Marlatt A (eds.). Changing addictive behavior. Bridging Clinical and Public Health Strategies. New York: The Guilford Press; 1999.

11. Kleyn J, Lake L. Factors associate with willingness to enter drug treatment: some implications for policy. AIDS Public Policy J 1990;5:112-116.

12. La Torre R. Pretherapy role induction procedures. Can Psychol Rev 1977;18:308-321.

13. Orne M, Werner P. Anticipatory socialization for psychotherapy: Method and rationale. American J Psychiatry 1968;124:1202-1212.

14. Yahne C, Miller W. Enhancing motivation for treatment and change. En: McCrady BS, Epstein EE (eds). Addictions. A Comprehensive Guidebook. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.

15. Marlatt G. Effective relapse prevention and harm reduction therapy. AABT Workshop Handout. Febrero 20, 1999.

16. Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing. Preparing people for change. New York: Wilford Press; 2002.

17. Prochaska J, Diclemente C. Toward a comprehensive model of change. En: Miller WR, Heather N (eds). Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change. New York: Plenum press; 1986.

18. Prochaska J, Diclemente C. Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research Practice 1982;19:276-288.

19. Carroll K, Ball S, Nich C, Martino S, Frankforter T et al Motivational interviewing to improve treatment engagement and outcome in individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse: a multisite effectiveness study. Connecticut: Yale University School of Medicine; 2006.

20. Brooke J. International theory: It’s utility in explaining drug use behavior among African-American and Puerto Rican youth. En: De la Rosa M, Recio-Adradoes J (eds). Drug abuse among minority youth: Advances in research and methodology. Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1993; Research monographs No. 130, pp. 79-101.

21. Miller W. Motivation for treatment: A review with special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychol Bull 1985;98(1):84-107.

22. Oppenheimer E, Sheenan M, Taylor C. Letting the client speak: Drug misusers and the process of help seeking. Br J Addict 1988;83:635-647.

23. Martínez K, Salazar M, Ruiz G, Pedroza F, Ayala H. Resultados prelimares del programa de intervención breve para adolescentes que inician el consumo de alcohol y otra drogas. Salud Mental 2008;31:119-128.

24. Martínez K, Salazar M, Ruiz G, Cassarubias V, Ayala H. Programa de Intervención Breve para Adolescentes que Inician el Consumo de Alcohol y otras Drogas. Manual del Terapeuta. México: CONADIC; 2005.

25. DSMIV-TR. Manual diagnostico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales. APA; 2006.

26. Hoehn-Ssaric R, Frank J, Imber S, Nash E, Stone A et al. Systematic preparation of patients for psychotherapy. Effects on therapy behaviour and outcome. J Psychiatr Res 1964;2:267-281.

27. Zweben A, Li S. The efficacy of role induction in preventing early dropout from outpatient treatment of drug dependency. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1981;8:183-191.

28. Aubrey L. Motivational interviewing with adolescents presenting for outpatient substance abuse treatment. Dissertation. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy psychology. Alburquerque, New Mexico: The University of New Mexico; mayo, 1998.

29. Tober G. Motivational interviewing with young people. En: Miller WR, Rollnick S (eds). Motivational interviewing. Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guildford Press; 1991.

30. González R, Paz P. Trastorno de estrés postraumático en mujeres victima de violencia domestica: evaluación de programas de intervención. Madrid: Universidad de Complutense; 2005.