Cited by 89Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Comparison of individual and group cognitive-behavioral therapy for alcohol and/or drug-dependent patients

Marques, Ana Cecilia P. R., Formigoni, Maria Lúcia O. S.·2001·Addiction

Abstract

Aims and design. A randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the influence of two formats of cognitive‐behavioral psychotherapy (individual vs. group) in the treatment of alcohol and/or drug dependent patients. Setting. Public outpatient drug dependence service. Participants. One hundred and fifty‐five alcohol and/or drug‐dependent patients. Intervention. The patients were randomly assigned to individual ( n = 77) or group ( n = 78) treatment formats. The treatment was developed into two phases: acquisition (eight sessions) and maintenance (nine sessions), distributed over an 8‐month period. Measurements. Alcohol and drug use, severity of dependence, and alcohol‐ and drug‐related problems were evaluated at pre‐treatment and 15 months after admission to treatment. Findings. At follow‐up evaluation both groups of patients presented similar levels of drug consumption, dependence and associated problems. Although group‐treated patients reported slightly higher levels of alcohol consumption (both at baseline and follow‐up) differences between the formats disappear if baseline levels are included as covariates. Compliance with treatment and a measure of drug severity were predictors of success for the drug dependents. The number of sessions attended and high GGT levels at admission were positively correlated with success for the alcohol dependents. Conclusions. The two modalities presented similar outcomes and, as the group format could present a better cost‐benefit ratio, it may be used without decreasing compliance with treatment or treatment effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9668355.x

Cites

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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marques, A. C. P. R., & Formigoni, M. L. O. S.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-06
Volume
96
Issue
6
Pages
835-846
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2053001670
Cited by
89
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNIFESP Institutional Repository (Universidade Federal de São Paulo) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Associação Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, individual psychotherapy, group therapy, alcoholism, drug addiction, outpatient addiction treatment, medication adherence, predictors of treatment success, gamma-glutamyl transferase, alcohol consumption, cost-benefit analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Psychotherapy, Group, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Chi-Square Distribution, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders

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