A consumer’s eye view of family-involved alcohol treatment
Open accessAbstract
Family involvement leads to better outcomes of alcohol treatment, but empirically-supported family treatments have not been adopted widely. The current study obtained consumer perspectives to inform development of a family treatment designed to be adopted by community programs. Four focus groups (N=25; 6 patients, 4 family members, 15 clinicians) were analyzed based on a coding system developed using Grounded Theory. Patient alcohol use negatively impacted family interactions, relationships, and resources. Family involvement barriers included: pragmatic challenges, institutional barriers, and family/patient ambivalence. Strategies to increase family involvement included: enhancing positive interactions, maintaining optimism about family involvement, and clinicians recommending family involvement.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Family treatments for substance use disorders have low uptake in service systems.
“Family treatments for substance use disorders have low uptake in service systems, due to financing barriers for interventions that focus on people other than the identified patient [56] and the limited economic evaluations of such treatments [57].”
From Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices (2021) · cites this paper as [56]
Low uptake of family treatments for substance use disorders is due to financing barriers for interventions that focus on people other than the identified patient.
“Family treatments for substance use disorders have low uptake in service systems, due to financing barriers for interventions that focus on people other than the identified patient [56] and the limited economic evaluations of such treatments [57].”
From Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices (2021) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 14
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Forcehimes A, Houck J, Davis M, Bogenschutz M, Anderson CL, & Anderson R (2010, 4). Attendee evaluation of empirically validated treatment workshops. Presented at the 8th NIDA Blending Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
- Garrett J, Landau J, Shea RR, Stanton MD, Baciewicz G, & Brinkman-Sull D (1998). The ARISE intervention: Using family and network links to engage addicted persons in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(2), 333– 343. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(97)00212-2 9650142 · DOI
- Liamputtong P (2010). Performing qualitative cross-cultural research New York: Cambridge University Press.
- McCrady BS & Epstein EE (2009). Overcoming alcohol problems: A couples-focused approach NY: Oxford University Press.
- McHugh RK, & Barlow DH (2010). The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. American Psychologist, 65, 73– 84. doi: 10.1037/a0018121 20141263 · DOI · Paper page
- Ossip-Klein D, & Rychtarik R (1993). Behavioral contracts between alcoholics and family members: Improving aftercare participation and maintaining sobriety after inpatient alcoholism treatment. In: O’Farrell TJ (Ed.), Treating alcohol problems. Marital and family interventions (pp. 281– 304). New York: Guilford Press.
- Strauss A, & Corbin J (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In Denzin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 217– 285). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- Authors
- McCrady, B. S., Wilson, A., Fink, B., Borders, A., Muñoz, R., & Fokas, K.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Corresponding author
- McCrady, Barbara S.
- Venue
- Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-06-20
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-59
- ISSN
- 0734-7324 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-4538
- PMC
- PMC6706243
- OpenAlex
- W2808827613
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (KL2 TR001448,R34AA023304,T32AA018108,UL1 TR001449)
- National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (UL1 TR001449)
- NIAAA (R34AA023304)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- family involvement, alcohol treatment, customer perspective, family-based treatment, treatment adoption, community-based programs, barriers to family involvement, family relationships, ambivalence, clinician recommendations
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
