Cited by 81Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsHomelessness and Social Issues

Efficacy of the Community Reinforcement and Family Training for concerned significant others of treatment-refusing individuals with alcohol dependence: A randomized controlled trial

Bischof, Gallus, Iwen, Julia, Freyer-Adam, Jennis, Rumpf, Hans-Jürgen·2016·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Background The Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) is a promising approach for Concerned Significant Others (CSOs) of alcohol-dependent individuals (ADI) that aims to engage treatment-refusing patients in alcohol treatment and to improve CSO functioning. To date, only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CRAFT-based treatment for CSOs of ADI are available, both conducted in the U.S. For the first time, this study analyses the efficacy of CRAFT in a sample of CSOs outside of the U.S.Methods Participants were recruited through the treatment system (general practitioners, psychotherapists, addiction counselling services) and through media solicitation. After brief screening, 94CSOs were randomly allocated to an immediate intervention condition (II) or a wait list condition (WL) that received the CRAFT intervention after 3 months. Data for the follow-up assessments at 3 and 6 months was provided by 78CSOs (II N=42; WL N=36). In addition, a follow-up assessment (f-u) was conducted after 12 months (Response rate 92%).Results At 3-month f-u, II revealed significant higher ADI engagement rates (40.5%) compared to WL (13.9%); after WL received the CRAFT intervention, engagement rates did not differ between both groups at 6- and 12-month f-u. CSOs in both groups reported significant improvements in terms of mental health and family cohesion after having received the intervention, i.e. II at 3-months f-u and WL at 6-month f-u.Conclusions Data show that CRAFT is effective for treating CSOs of alcohol dependent individuals in terms of treatment engagement and improvement of CSOs mental health and family cohesion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.015

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bischof, G., Iwen, J., Freyer-Adam, J., & Rumpf, H.-J.
Affiliations
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Bischof, Gallus
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
163
Pages
179-185
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2340930823
Cited by
81
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (01GX0702)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
Keywords
Community Reinforcement and Family Training, concerned significant others, alcoholism, family intervention, treatment engagement, family cohesion, alcoholism treatment
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Counseling, Family Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reinforcement, Psychology, Residence Characteristics, Treatment Refusal, Behavior, Addictive, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review