Abstinence Violation Effect AVE

This relapse prevention (RP) model, which was developed by Marlatt and Gordon (1985) and which has been widely used in recent years, has been the focus of considerable research. This article reviews various immediate and covert triggers of relapse proposed by the RP model, as well as numerous specific and general intervention strategies that may help patients avoid and cope with relapse-inducing situations. In a 2013 Cochrane review which also discussed regarding relapse prevention in smokers the authors concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention to help smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focused on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these24.

Cognitive Behavioural model of relapse

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). Even among those who do perceive a need for treatment, less than half (40%) make any effort to get it (SAMHSA, 2019a). Although reducing practical barriers to treatment is essential, evidence suggests that these barriers do not fully account for low rates of treatment utilization. Instead, the literature indicates that most people with SUD do not want or need – or are not ready for – what the current treatment system is offering. The results reported in the RREP study indicate that the original relapse taxonomy of the RP model has only moderate inter-rater reliability at the highest level of specificity, although reliability of the more general categories (e.g., negative affect and social pressure) was better.

Outcome Studies for Relapse Prevention

Additionally, some groups target individuals with co-occurring psychiatric disorders (Little, Hodari, Lavender, & Berg, 2008). Important features common to these groups include low program barriers (e.g., drop-in groups, few rules) and inclusiveness of clients with difficult presentations (Little & Franskoviak, 2010). AA was established in 1935 as a nonprofessional mutual aid group for people who desire abstinence from alcohol, and its 12 Steps became integrated in SUD treatment programs in the 1940s and 1950s with the emergence of the Minnesota Model of treatment (White & Kurtz, 2008). The Minnesota Model involved inpatient SUD treatment incorporating principles of AA, with a mix of professional and peer support staff (many of whom were members of AA), and a requirement that patients attend AA or NA meetings as part of their treatment (Anderson, McGovern, & DuPont, 1999; McElrath, 1997).

Future directions for research

A number of studies have examined psychosocial risk reduction interventions for individuals with high-risk drug use, especially people who inject drugs. In contrast to the holistic approach of harm reduction psychotherapy, risk reduction interventions are generally designed to target specific HIV risk behaviors (e.g., injection or sexual risk behaviors) without directly addressing mechanisms of SUD, and thus are quite limited in scope. However, these interventions also typically lack an abstinence focus and sometimes result in reductions in drug use. Individuals with fewer years of addiction and lower severity SUDs generally have the highest likelihood of achieving moderate, low-consequence substance use after treatment (Öjehagen & Berglund, 1989; Witkiewitz, 2008). Notably, these individuals are also most likely to endorse nonabstinence goals (Berglund et al., 2019; Dunn & Strain, 2013; Lozano et al., abstinence violation effect 2006; Lozano et al., 2015; Mowbray et al., 2013).

Marlatt and Gordon (1985) have proposed that the covert antecedent most strongly related to relapse risk involves the degree of balance in the person’s life between perceived external demands (i.e., “shoulds”) and internally fulfilling or enjoyable activities (i.e., “wants”). A person whose life is full of demands may experience a constant sense of stress, which not only can generate negative emotional states, thereby creating high-risk situations, but also enhances the person’s desire for pleasure and his or her rationalization that indulgence is justified (“I owe myself a drink”). In the absence of other non-drinking pleasurable activities, the person may view drinking as the only means of obtaining pleasure or escaping pain. 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.

This suggests that treatment experiences and therapist input can influence participant goals over time, and there is value in engaging patients with non-abstinence goals in treatment. In addition to shaping mainstream addiction treatment, the abstinence-only 12-Step model also had an indelible effect on the field of SUD treatment research. Most scientists who studied SUD treatment believed that abstinence was the only acceptable treatment goal until at least the 1980s (Des Jarlais, 2017). Abstinence rates became the primary outcome for determining SUD treatment effectiveness (Finney, Moyer, & Swearingen, 2003; Kiluk, Fitzmaurice, Strain, & Weiss, 2019; Miller, 1994; Volkow, 2020), a standard which persisted well into the 1990s (Finney et al., 2003). 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.

Relapse Prevention And Ongoing Treatment At Bedrock

Clients are taught that changing a habit is a process of skill acquisition rather than a test of one’s willpower. As the client gains new skills and feels successful in implementing them, he or she can view the process of change as similar to other situations that require the acquisition of a new skill. Administrative discharge due to substance use is not a necessary practice even within abstinence-focused treatment (Futterman, Lorente, & Silverman, 2004), and is likely linked to the assumption that continued use indicates lack of readiness for treatment, and that abstinence is the sole marker of treatment success. In the United Kingdom, where there is greater acceptance of nonabstinence goals and availability of nonabstinence treatment (Rosenberg et al., 2020; Rosenberg & Melville, 2005), the rate of administrative discharge is much lower than in the U.S. (1.42% vs. 6% of treatment episodes; Newham, Russell, & Davies, 2010; SAMHSA, 2019b). When abstinence is violated, individuals typically also have an emotional response consisting of guilt, shame, hopelessness, loss of control, and/or a sense of failure; they may use drugs or alcohol in an attempt to cope with the negative feelings that resulted from their abstinence violation. A person may experience a particularly stressful emotional event in their lives and may turn to alcohol and/or drugs to cope with these negative emotions.

Harm reduction may also be well-suited for people with high-risk drug use and severe, treatment-resistant SUDs (Finney & Moos, 2006; Ivsins, Pauly, Brown, & Evans, 2019). These individuals are considered good candidates for harm reduction interventions because of the severity of substance-related negative consequences, and thus the urgency of reducing these harms. Indeed, this argument has been central to advocacy around harm reduction interventions for people who inject drugs, such as SSPs and safe injection facilities (Barry et al., 2019; Kulikowski & Linder, 2018). It has also been used to advocate for managed alcohol and housing first programs, which represent a harm reduction approach to high-risk drinking among people with severe AUD (Collins et al., 2012; Ivsins et al., 2019).

• In addition to issues with administrative discharge, abstinence-only treatment may contribute to high rates of individuals not completing SUD treatment.
• Although there is some debate about the best definitions of lapse and relapse from theoretical and conceptual levels, these definitions should suffice.
• CBT treatments are usually guided by a manual, are relatively short term (12 to 16 weeks) in duration, and focus on the present and future.
• Because relapse is the most common outcome of treatment for addictions, it must be addressed, anticipated, and prepared for during treatment.
• The abstinence violation effect (AVE) occurs when an individual, having made a personal commitment to abstain from using a substance or to cease engaging in some other unwanted behavior, has an initial lapse whereby the substance or behavior is engaged in at least once.
• Consistent with the philosophy of harm reduction as described by Marlatt et al. (2001), harm reduction psychotherapy is accepting of a wide range of client goals, including risk reduction, moderation, and abstinence (of note, abstinence is conceptualized as consistent with harm reduction when it is a goal chosen by the client).

Another factor that may occur is the Problem of Immediate Gratification where the client settles for shorter positive outcomes and does not consider larger long term adverse consequences when they lapse. This can be worked on by creating a decisional matrix where the pros and cons of continuing the behaviour versus abstaining are written down within both shorter and longer time frames and the therapist helps the client to identify unrealistic outcome expectancies5. A high-risk situation is defined as a circumstance in which an individual’s attempt to refrain from a particular behaviour is threatened. While analysing high-risk situations the client is asked to generate a list of situations that are low-risk, and to determine what aspects of those situations differentiate them from the high-risk situations. High-risk situations are determined by an analysis of previous lapses and by reports of situations in which the client feels or felt “tempted.” Appropriate responses are those behaviours that lead to avoidance of high-risk situations, or behaviours that foster adaptive responses. Seemingly irrelevant decisions (SIDs) are those behaviours that are early in the path of decisions that place the client in a high-risk situation.

• Despite compatibility with harm reduction in established SUD treatment models such as MI and RP, there is a dearth of evidence testing these as standalone treatments for helping patients achieve nonabstinence goals; this is especially true regarding DUD (vs. AUD).
• After the two stimuli have been paired repeatedly, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus that elicits the same physiological response.
• His work focuses on social, motivational, and spiritual influences in etiology, prevention, and treatment of health and risk behaviors.

The results of the Sobell’s studies challenged the prevailing understanding of abstinence as the only acceptable outcome for SUD treatment and raised a number of conceptual and methodological issues (e.g., the Sobell’s liberal definition of controlled drinking; see McCrady, 1985). A “controlled drinking controversy” followed, in which the Sobells as well as those who supported them were publicly criticized due to their claims about controlled drinking, and the validity of their research called into question (Blume, 2012; Pendery, Maltzman, & West, 1982). Despite the intense controversy, the Sobell’s high-profile research paved the way for additional studies of nonabstinence treatment for AUD in the 1980s and later (Blume, 2012; Sobell & Sobell, 1995). Marlatt, in particular, became well known for developing nonabstinence treatments, such as BASICS for college drinking (Marlatt et al., 1998) and Relapse Prevention (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). Like the Sobells, Marlatt showed that reductions in drinking and harm were achievable in nonabstinence treatments (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2002). Another approach to preventing relapse and promoting behavioral change is the use of efficacy-enhancement procedures—that is, strategies designed to increase a client’s sense of mastery and of being able to handle difficult situations without lapsing.