Psychosocial assessment in substance abuse and dependence

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 167-172

  Kokkevi, Anna ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Greece)

^b Organisation Against Drugs (OKANA)   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; HUMAN; PREDICTION; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0035011679     PISSN: 09517367     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001504-200105000-00002     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. 1 Glantz M, Pickens R. Vulnerability to drug abuse. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 1992.
2. 2 Verheul R, Van den Brink W. The role of personality pathology in the aetiology and treatment of substance use disorders. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2000; 13:163-169.
3. 3 Kokkevi A, Stefanis N, Anastasopoulou E, Kostogianni C. Personality disorders in drug abusers: prevalence and their association with axis I disorders as predictors of treatment retention. Addict Behav 1998; 6:841-853.
4. 4 Stuart G, Price L. Recent developments in populations at risk for substance abuse. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2000; 13:315-320.
5. 5 Latimer W, Newcomb M, Winters K, Stinchfield D. Adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome: the role of substance abuse problem severity, psychosocial, and treatment factors. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000; 66:684-696.
6. 6 Etter JF, Bergman MM, Humair JP, Perneger TV. Development and validation of a scale measuring self-efficacy of current and former smokers. Addiction 2000; 95:901-913. The smoking self-efficacy questionnaire SEO-12 predicts smoking cessation by assessing the confidence of current and former smokers in their ability to abstain from smoking in high-risk situations.
7. 7 Etter JF, Humair JP, Bergman MM, PeregerTV. Development and validation of the attitudes towards smoking scale (ATS-18). Addiction 2000; 95:613-625. The attitudes towards smoking scale ATS-18 predicts cessation among smokers and relapse among ex-smokers through their perceptions of the adverse effects of smoking, psychoactive benefits and pleasure of smoking.
8. 8 Kawakami N, Takatsuka N, Inaba S, Shimizu H. Development of a screening questionnaire for tobacco/nicotine dependence according to ICD-10, DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Addict Behav 1999; 24:155-166.
9. 9 Oei T, Sweeton J, Dingle G, Chalmers K. Psychometric properties of a quitting time for alcohol questionnaire: factor structure, reliability, and validity. Addict Behav 1999; 24:383-398. The 23-item quitting time for alcohol questionnaire OTAO was administered to a community sample. Its three factors (internal status, avoidance adherence and immediate context) classified participants according to self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol dependence criteria, and significantly predicted these criteria.
10. 10 Miele GM, Carpenter KM, Cockerham MS, et al. Substance dependence severity scale (SDSS): reliability and validity of a clinician-administered interview for DSM-IV substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59:63-75.
11. 11 Miele GM, Carpenter KM, Cockerham MS, et al. Concurrent and predictive validity of the substance dependence severity scale (SDSS). Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59:77-88.
12. 12 Neff J, Zule W. Predicting treatment-seeking behavior: psychometric properties of a brief self-report scale. Subst Use Misuse 2000; 35:585-599. The treatment attitude profile TAP is a 25 item self-report scale developed to predict treatment-seeking behaviour, with four subscales: perceived need for treatment, perceived drug problem severity, motivation to quit and negative attitudes towards treatment. It can be answered by limited literacy populations in field or office settings.
13. 13 Hser Y, Shen H, Grella C, Anglin M. Lifetime severity index for cocaine use disorder (LSI-cocaine): a predictor of treatment outcomes. J Nerv Ment Disord 1999; 187:742-750.
14. 14 Christo G, Spurrell S, Alcorn R. Validation of the Christo inventory for substance-misuse services (CISS): a simple outcome evaluation tool. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59:189-197.
15. 15 Comfort M, Zanis A, Whiteley M, et al. Assessing the needs of substance abusing women: psychometric data on the psychosocial history. J Subst Abuse Treat 1999; 17:79-83.
16. 16 Sklar S, Turner N. A brief measure for the assessment of coping self-efficacy among alcohol and other drug users. Addiction 1999; 94:723-729. The DTCQ-8 is a short, eight-item coping self-efficacy screen instrument among alcohol and other drug users from the DTCQ. It proved to be a reliable and valid indicator of self-efficacy, and thus useful in outcome evaluation.
17. 17 Heather N, Luce A, Peck D, et al. Development of a treatment version of the readiness to change questionnaire. Addict Res 1999; 7:63-83. A treatment version of the readiness to change questionnaire was developed, and its psychometric properties were tested on a sample of 263 clients in alcohol treatment. Association between the different stages of change and treatment-related variables shows its utility for the assessment of a treatment population.
18. 18 Martino S, Grilo C, Fehon D. Development of the drug abuse screening test for adolescents (DAST-A). Addict Behav 2000; 25:57-70. The drug abuse screening test DAST-A can differentiate adolescent psychiatric inpatients with and without drug-related disorders.
19. 19 Winters KC, Anderson N, Bengston P, et al. Development of a parent questionnaire for use in assessing adolescent drug abuse. J Psychoact Drugs 2000; 32:3-13.
20. 20 Cherpitel C. A brief screening instrument for problem drinking in the emergency room: the RAPS4, J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61:447-449. A shortened version of the RAPS4 was tested against ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria as a screen for alcohol dependence and harmful drinking or abuse in a sample of 1429 emergency room patients. Four out of its five items were found to be most efficient, whereas a single item (feeling guilt or remorse after drinking) identified 83% of those with alcohol dependence and 44% who met the criteria for harmful drinking or abuse.
21. 21 Aertgeerts B, Buntinx F, Fevery J, Ansoms S. Is there a difference between CAGE interviews and written CAGE questionnaires? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2000; 24:733-736. Clinicians can use the interview mode of the CAGE for screening alcohol problems, obtaining results equally valid as those from the written form, in which it was developed and tested.
22. 22 Rosen C, Henson B, Finney J, Moos R. Consistency of self-administered and interview-based addiction severity index composite scores. Addiction 2000; 95:427-435. Compares a self-administered version of the ASI with the interview format on a sample of 316 veterans entering substance abuse treatment. Composite scores for alcohol, drug, psychiatric, family legal and employment problems had good correlation between the two formats.
23. 23 Greenfield T, Midanik L, Rogers J. Effects of telephone versus face-to-face interview modes on reports of alcohol consumption. Addiction 2000; 95:277-284. Examines telephone versus face-to-face interviewing reports of alcohol consumption in a probability sample of US adults. Few differences exist between the two modes in estimating alcohol consumption, but lower socioeconomic status respondents were under-represented in the telephone sample and they tended to under-report the volume and frequency of alcohol drinking.
24. 24 Gmel G. The effect of mode of data collection and of non-response on reported alcohol consumption: a split-sample study in Switzerland. Addiction 2000; 95:123-134.
25. 25 Lessler J, Caspar R, Penne M, Barker P. Developing computer assisted interviewing (CAI) for the national household survey on drug abuse. J Drug Issues 2000; 30:9-34. Various aspects of an ACASI were tested in a field experiment, showing its suitability for the self-reporting of drug use by young people, including poor readers and less well-educated respondents.
26. 26 Williams M, Freeman R, Bowen A, et al. A comparison of the reliability of self-reported drug use and sexual behaviors using computer-assisted versus face-to-face interviewing. AIDS Educ Prev 2000; 12:199-213.
27. 27 Bendtsen P, Timpka T. Acceptability of computerized self-report of alcohol habits: a patient perspective. Alcohol Alcohol 1999; 34:575-580.
28. 28 Gribble J, Miller H, Cooley P, et. al. The impact of T-A CASI interviewing on reported drug use among men who have sex with men. Subst Use Misuse 2000; 35:869-890.
29. 29 Gmel G, Lokosha O. Self-reported frequency of drinking assessed with a closed or open-ended question format: a split-sample study in Switzerland. J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61:450-454.
30. 30 Ivis FJ, Adlaf EM, Rehm J. Incorporating the AUDIT into a general population telephone survey: a methodological experiment. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 60:97-104.
31. 31 Daeppen JB, Yersin B, Landrv U, et al. Reliability and validity of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) imbedded within a general health risk screening questionnaire: results of a survey in 332 primary care patients. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2000; 24:659-665. Studies the psychometric properties for health-risk screening of the self-administered AUDIT incorporated within a health questionnaire (H-AUDIT).
32. 32 Barrowcliff A, Champney-Smith J, McBride A. Use of a modified version of the opiate treatment index with amphetamine users: validation and pilot evaluation of a prescribing service. J Subst Use 1999; 4:98-103.
33. 33 Cherpitel C. Screening for alcohol problems in the US general population: a comparison of the CAGE and TWEAK by gender, ethnicity, and services utilization. J Stud Alcohol 1999; 60:705-711. Data from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey in the USA were used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of two alcohol dependence screening measures (CAGE and TWEAK) when applied in the general population. Both were suitable for identifying problem drinkers. However, their sensitivity varied according to demographic characteristics such as sex or ethnicity, and health service utilization.
34. 34 Bisson J, Nadeu L, Demers A. The validity of the CAGE scale to screen for heavy drinking and drinking problems in a general population survey. Addiction 1999; 94:715-722.
35. 35 Banwell C, O'Brien M, Hamilton M, Attewell R. Measuring women's alcohol consumption in an Australian inner-urban community using the AUDIT. Drug Alcohol Rev 1999; 18:379-388.
36. 36 Davey J, Obst P, Sheehan M. The use of AUDIT as a screening tool for alcohol use in the police work-place. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000; 19:49-54.
37. 37 Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC. Alcohol screening and brief intervention: dissemination strategies for medical practice and public health. Addiction 2000; 95:677-686.
38. 38 Knight JR, Goodman E, Pulerwitz T, Durant RH. Reliabilities of short substance abuse screening tests among adolescent medical patients. Pediatrics 2000; 105:948-953. Tests the CAGE questions adapted for adolescents (CAGE-AA), Simple Screening Instruments for Alcohol and Other Drugs (SSI-AOD) and Drug and Alcohol Problem Quick Screen (DAP-4) for internal consistency and test-retest reliability in a sample of 173 adolescent medical patients. The CAGE-AA requires further revision; the DAP-4 questions are probably measuring different but important constructs; the SSI-AOD is a reliable screening instrument in this group.
39. 39 De las Cuevas C, Sanz E, De la Fuente J, et al. The severity of dependence scale (SDS) as screening test for benzodiazepine dependence: SDS validation study. Addiction 2000; 95:243-250.
40. 40 Teitelbaum L, Mullen B. The validity of the MAST in psychiatric settings: a meta-analytic integration. Michigan alcoholism screening test. J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61:254-261.
41. 41 Santisteban DA, Tejeda M, Dominicis C, Szapocznik J. An efficient tool for screening for maladaptive family functioning in adolescent drug abusers: the problem oriented screening instrument for teenagers. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1999; 25:197-206. A study of a referred sample of young people with behaviour problems including drug abuse, demonstrating the ability of the 11-item family functioning screen of the problem-oriented screening instrument for teenagers to provide information about family functioning in this specific group.
42. 42 Martin C, Pollock N, Bukstein O, Lynch K. Inter-rater reliability of the SCID alcohol and substance use disorders section among adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59:173-176.
43. 43 Winters K, Latimer W, Stinchfield R. The DSM-IV criteria for adolescent alcohol and cannabis use disorders. J Stud Alcohol 1999; 60:337-344. Compares DSM-IV and DSM-III R criteria for alcohol and cannabis use disorders in a sample of adolescents attending drug clinics. DSM-IV yielded more cases of abuse and fewer of dependence.
44. 44 Pollock NK, Martin C. Diagnostic orphans: adolescents with alcohol symptoms who do not qualify for DSM-IV abuse or dependence diagnosis. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156:897-901. A study of regularly drinking adolescents from the community and alcohol treatment programmes that confirms the limitations of the DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use disorders when applied to adolescents.
45. 45 Pollock NK, Martin CS, Langenbucher JW. Diagnostic concordance of DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV and ICD-10 alcohol diagnosis in adolescents. J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61:439-446. The validity of DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorders when applied to adolescents was studied using the structured clinical interview for the DSM (SCID). As with adults, diagnostic concordance among adolescents was fair to high for alcohol dependence and very low for alcohol abuse.
46. 46 Fulkerson J, Harrison P, BeebeT. DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence: are there really two dimensions of substance use disorders in adolescents? Addiction 1999; 94:495-506. Studies the distinction between the DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence constructs on the basis of the 1995 Minnesota Student Survey, and suggests that they constitute a one-dimensional rather than two-dimensional construct in adolescents.
47. 47 Leonhard C, Mulvey K, Gastfriend D, Shwartz M. The addiction severity index. A field study of internal consistency and validity. J Subst Abuse Treat 2000; 18:129-135. The validity of ASI composite scores and severity ratings was measured on a large sample from a network of inner-city substance abuse treatment clinics. ASI scores were internally consistent and valid even though protocol instructions were not closely followed. Caution is advised until the reliability of measures and permissible deviations from the standard protocol are quantified.
48. 48 Carise D, McLellan A, Gifford L, Kleber H. Developing a national addiction treatment information system: an introduction to the drug evaluation network system. J Subst Abuse Treat 1999; 17:67-77. A drug evaluation network system was initiated by the Treatment Research Institute in Philadelphia using the ASI and additional descriptive and discharge status information. The electronically based system aims to track trends in substance abuse treatment. Results from testing the utility and applicability of the system on 4300 adults entering drug or alcohol treatment are discussed.
49. 49 Connor J, Young R, Williams R, Ricciardelli L. Drinking restraint versus alcohol expectancies: which is the better indicator of alcohol problems? J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61:352-359.
50. 50 Ames S, Sussman S, Dent C. Pro-drug-use myths and competing constructs in the prediction of substance use among youth at continuation high schools: a one-year prospective study. Pers Indiv Diff 1999; 26:987-1003.
51. 51 Long C, Hollin C, Williams M. Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and fantasies as predictors of alcohlics' postreatment drinking. Subst Use Misuse 1998; 33:2383-2402.
52. 52 Alterman AI, McKay JR, Mulvanev FD, et al. Baseline prediction of 7-month cocaine abstinence for cocaine dependence patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59:215-221.
53. 53 Swift W, Hall W, Copeland J. One year follow-up of cannabis dependence among long-term users in Sydney, Australia. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59:309-318.
54. 54 Breslau N, Johnson EO. Predicting smoking cessation and major depression in nicotine-dependent smokers. Am J Public Health 2000; 90:1122-1127.
55. 55 Carey K, Purnine M, Maisto S, Carey M. Assessing readiness to change substance abuse: a critical review of instruments. Clin Psychol-Sci Pr 1999; 6:245-266. An interesting review of instruments assessing readiness to change.
56. 56 Schmitz JM, Stotts AL, Averill PM, et al. Cocaine dependence with and without comorbid depression: a comparison of patient characteristics. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 60:189-198.
57. 57 Sayette MA, Shiffman S, Tiffany ST, et al. The measurement of drug craving [Supplement], Addiction 2000; 95:S189-S210. A good review of theoretical and measurement issues related to drug craving.
58. 58 Anton RF. Obsessive-compulsive aspects of craving: development of the obsessive compulsive drinking scale [Supplement]. Addiction 2000; 95:S211-S217. An interesting review of the construct of craving and of the psychometric characteristics and the utility in treatment of the OCDS self-report questionnaire measuring alcohol-related craving.
59. 59 Litt MD, Cooney NL, Morse P. Reactivity to alcohol-related stimuli in the laboratory and in the field: predictors of craving in treated alcoholics. Addiction 2000; 95:889-900. Predictors of alcohol craving, and the relationship between craving and drinking immediately after treatment, were studied under laboratory and field conditions. A desire to drink in the laboratory had only a modest correlation with urge to drink in the field. Those who reported urges in the field were more severely dependent and had higher trait anger and anxiety scores. The authors conclude that craving is related to drinking immediately after treatment and is more frequent among those with more severe dependence and mood disturbance.
60. 60 Monti PM, Rohsenow DJ, Hutchison KE. Toward bridging the gap between biological, psychobiological and psychosocial models of alcohol craving [Supplement]. Addiction 2000; 95:S229-S236. Stresses factors to be considered more carefully in human studies, such as the motivation to drink, awareness of risk and effectiveness of coping.
61. 61 Meyer RE. Craving: what can be done to bring the insights of neuroscience, behavioral science and clinical science into synchrony [Supplement]. Addiction 2000; 95:S219-S227. Cue reactivity compared in the presence or absence of the opportunity to drink, symptoms and signs of protracted abstinence, questions regarding situational craving and field observations of alcoholics in their favourite drinking environments.
62. 62 Stauffacher M, Kokkevi A. The Pompidou group treatment demand protocol: the first Pan-European standard in this field. Eur Addict Res 1999; 5:191-196. Presents this standardized instrument's rationale and content, with methodological observations based on a European multi-city study.
63. 63 Kokkevi A. Development and testing of an exit from treatment form-ETI for clients in drug abuse treatment: final report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2000.
64. 64 Johnston L, Driessen F, Kokkevi A. Surveying student drug misuse: a six-country pilot study. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 1994.
65. 65 Simon R, Donmall M, Hartnoll R, et al. The EMCDDA/Pompidou group treatment demand indicator protocol: a European core item set for treatment monitoring and reporting. Eur Addict Res 1999; 5:197-207. Thorough information on the treatment demand indicator by means of which data on the characteristics of clients entering treatment in European countries are collected under the coordination of the EMCDDA.
66. 66 Hibell B, Andersson B, Ahlstrom S, et al. The 1999 ESPAD report: alcohol and other drug use among students in 30 European Countries. Stockholm: CAN, Council of Europe Pompidou Group; 2000. A very interesting report providing data from a survey on alcohol, other drug use and psychosocial correlates among students in 30 European countries in 1999, with trends from 1995.
67. 67 Kokkevi A, Hartgers C. EuropASI: European adaptation of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence. Eur Addict Res 1995; 1:208-210.
68. 68 Marsden J, Nizzoli U, Corbelli C, et al. New European instruments for treatment outcome research: reliability of the Maudsley addiction profile and treatment perceptions questionnaire in Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Eur Addict Res 2000; 6:115-122. An interesting article on coordinating efforts to standardize a treatment evaluation instrument.
69. 69 Ansseau M, Besson J, Lejoyeux M, et al. A French translation of the obsessive-compulsive drinking scale for craving in alcohol-dependent patients: a validation study in Belgium, France, and Switzerland. Eur Addict Res 2000; 6:51-56.