Like the Sobells, Marlatt showed that reductions in drinking and harm were achievable in nonabstinence treatments (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2002). The revised dynamic model of relapse also takes into account the timing and interrelatedness of risk factors, as well as provides for feedback between lower- and higher-level components of the model. For example, based https://ecosoberhouse.com/ on the dynamic model it is hypothesized that changes in one risk factor (e.g. negative affect) influences changes in drinking behavior and that changes in drinking also influences changes in the risk factors. The dynamic model of relapse has generated enthusiasm among researchers and clinicians who have observed these processes in their data and their clients.

Little attention was given to whether people in abstinence-focused treatments endorsed abstinence goals themselves, or whether treatment could help reduce substance use and related problems for those who did not desire (or were not ready for) abstinence. Recovery benefits from a detailed relapse prevention plan kept in a handy place—next to your phone charger, taped to the refrigerator door or the inside of a medicine cabinet—for immediate access when cravings hit. A good relapse prevention plan specifies a person’s triggers for drug use, lists some coping skills to summon up and distractions to engage in, and lists people to call on for immediate support, along with their contact information.

Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE)

Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that this may be the case; for example, a qualitative study of nonabstinence drug treatment in Denmark described a client saying that he would not have presented to abstinence-only treatment due to his goal of moderate use (Järvinen, 2017). In the 1980s and 1990s, the HIV/AIDS epidemic prompted recognition of the role of drug use in disease transmission, generating new urgency around the adoption of a public health-focused approach to researching and treating drug use problems (Sobell & Sobell, 1995). The realization that HIV had been spreading widely among people who injected drugs in the mid-1980s led to the first syringe services programs (SSPs) in the U.S. (Des Jarlais, 2017). Early attempts to establish pilot SSPs were met with public outcry and were blocked by politicians (Anderson, 1991).

In this model, treatment success is defined as achieving and sustaining total abstinence from alcohol and drugs, and readiness for treatment is conflated with commitment to abstinence (e.g., Harrell, Trenz, Scherer, Martins, & Latimer, 2013). Additionally, the system is punitive to those who do not achieve abstinence, as exemplified by the widespread practice of involuntary treatment discharge for those who return to use (White, Scott, Dennis, & Boyle, 2005). Rather, when people with SUD are surveyed about reasons they are not in treatment, not being ready to stop using substances is consistently the top reason cited, even among individuals who perceive a need for treatment (SAMHSA, 2018, 2019a). Indeed, about 95% of people with SUD say they do not need SUD treatment (SAMHSA, 2019a).

Cognitive Processes

Despite various treatment programmes for substance use disorders, helping individuals remain abstinent remains a clinical challenge. Cognitive behavioural therapies are empirically supported interventions in the management of addictive behaviours. CBT comprises of heterogeneous treatment components that allow the therapist to use this approach across a variety of addictive behaviours, including behavioural addictions. Relapse prevention abstinence violation effect programmes addressing not just the addictive behaviour, but also factors that contribute to it, thereby decreasing the probability of relapse. Addictive behaviours are characterized by a high degree of co-morbidity and these may interfere with treatment response. Although high-risk situations can be conceptualized as the immediate determinants of relapse episodes, a number of less obvious factors also influence the relapse process.

In the absence of other non-drinking pleasurable activities, the person may view drinking as the only means of obtaining pleasure or escaping pain. In many cases, initial lapses occur in high-risk situations that are completely unexpected and for which the drinker is often unprepared. In relapse “set ups,” however, it may be possible to identify a series of covert decisions or choices, each of them seemingly inconsequential, which in combination set the person up for situations with overwhelmingly high risk. These choices have been termed “apparently irrelevant decisions” (AIDs), because they may not be overtly recognized as related to relapse but nevertheless help move the person closer to the brink of relapse. A critical difference exists between the first violation of the abstinence goal (i.e., an initial lapse) and a return to uncontrolled drinking or abandonment of the abstinence goal (i.e., a full-blown relapse). Although research with various addictive behaviors has indicated that a lapse greatly increases the risk of eventual relapse, the progression from lapse to relapse is not inevitable.