Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:55:00.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of a national ‘Minnesota Model’ based residential treatment programme for alcohol dependence in Ireland: outcomes and predictors of outcome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2017

C. Gallagher ,
Z. Radmall ,
C. O’Gara  and
T. Burke
C. Gallagher*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Co. Dublin, Ireland Department of Psychology, Saint John of God Menni Services, Islandbridge, Dublin, Ireland School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Z. Radmall
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Saint John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Co. Dublin, Ireland
C. O’Gara
Affiliation:
Addictions Unit, Saint John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Co. Dublin A94 FH92, Ireland School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
T. Burke
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin, Ireland
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr C. Gallagher, Department of Psychology, Saint John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, A94 FH92 Co. Dublin, Ireland. (Email: colin.gallagher@sjog.ie)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The aims of this study were (a) to examine the effectiveness of an inpatient treatment programme for alcohol dependence based on the ‘Minnesota Model’ and (b) to examine potential predictors of outcomes from such treatment.

Methods

Demographics and data relating to psychosocial functioning of a group of individuals who commenced treatment for alcohol dependence were gathered at the point of treatment entry. These individuals were then followed up 6 months after they were to complete their inpatient treatment to establish their alcohol-related outcomes. Outcomes from treatment were identified as an index of treatment effectiveness and the outcome data were analysed to determine whether any of the baseline variables could be used to predict outcomes from treatment.

Results

Of those who were contacted at 6-month follow-up, 81.5% had a ‘good outcome’. This represented 66.7% of the total group who participated in the study. The only variable that was found to predict outcomes at 6-month follow-up was severity of alcohol dependence at treatment entry, with more severe alcohol problems associated with poorer outcomes.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence of the potential for a Minnesota-based treatment programme to be effective in helping people with alcohol dependence to reduce the amount of alcohol they consume and sustain this reduction beyond the treatment period.

Keywords

Alcohol dependenceMinnesotaprospective studytreatment outcome
Type
Original Research
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 33 - 41
Copyright
© College of Psychiatrists of Ireland 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. Text Revision American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Babor, TF, Higgins-Biddle, JC, Saunders, JB, Monteiro, MG (2001). AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines For Use in Primary Care Settings, 2nd edn. WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar
Beck, AT, Steer, RA (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory. Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Beck, AT, Steer, RA, Brown, GK (1996). Beck Depression Inventory – II. Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Blume, AW, Schmaling, KB, Marlatt, GA (2005). Memory, executive cognitive function, and readiness to change drinking behavior. Addictive Behaviors 30, 301–314.Google Scholar
Bodin, MC, Romelsjo, A (2006). Predictors of abstinence and nonproblem drinking after 12-step treatment in Sweden. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 67, 139–146.Google Scholar
Bottlender, M., Soyka, M (2005). Outpatient alcoholism treatment: predictors of outcome after 3 years. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 80, 83–89.Google Scholar
Cook, CCH (1988). The Minnesota Model in the management of drug and alcohol dependency: Miracle, method or myth? Part II. Evidence and conclusions. British Journal of Addiction 83, 738–748.Google ScholarPubMed
Dawson, DA, Goldstein, RB, Grant, BF (2007). Rates and correlates of relapse among individuals in remission from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: a 3-year follow-up. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31, 2036–2045.Google Scholar
Fitts, WH, Warren, WL (1996). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, 2nd edn. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Folstein, M, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR (1975). “Mini Mental State” a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmore, KM (1985). Hazelden Primary Residential Treatment Program: 1985 Profile and ‘Patient Outcome’. Hazelden: Center City, MN.Google Scholar
Grønbæk, M, Nielsen, B (2007). A randomised controlled trial of Minnesota day clinic treatment of alcoholics. Addiction 102, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, PA, Asche, SE (2001). Outcomes monitoring in Minnesota: treatment implications, practical limitations. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 21, 173–183.Google Scholar
Higgins, P, Baeumler, R, Fisher, J, Johnson, V (1991). Treatment outcomes for Minnesota model programs. In Does Your Program Measure up? An Addiction Professional’s Guide to Evaluating Treatment Effectiveness (ed. J. Spicer), pp. 93–114. Hazelden: Center City, MN.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, N, Harrison, P (1991). The Chemical Abuse Treatment Outcome Registry (CATOR): treatment outcome from private programs. In Does Your Program Measure Up? An Addiction Professional’s Guide to Evaluating Treatment Effectiveness (ed. J. Spicer), pp. 115–133. Hazelden: Center City, MN.Google Scholar
Keso, L, Salaspuro, M (1990). Inpatient treatment of employed alcoholics: a randomized clinical trial on Hazelden-type and traditional treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 14, 584–589.Google Scholar
Kodl, MM, Fu, SS, Willenbring, ML, Gravely, A, Nelson, DB, Joseph, AM (2008). The impact of depressive symptoms on alcohol and cigarette consumption following treatment for alcohol and nicotine dependence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 32, 92–99.Google Scholar
Kushner, MG, Abrams, K, Thuras, P, Hanson, KL, Brekke, M, Sletten, S (2005). Follow-up study of anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence in comorbid alcoholism treatment patients. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 29, 1432–1443.Google Scholar
Laundergan, JC (1982). Easy Does It: Alcoholism Treatment Outcomes, Hazelden and the Minnesota Model. Hazelden: Center City, MN.Google Scholar
McConnaughy, EN, Prochaska, JO, Velicer, WF (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy 20, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moos, RH, Moos, BS (2007). Protective resources and long-term recovery from alcohol use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 86, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Project MATCH Research Group (1997). Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 58, 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psychological Corporation (2001). WTAR: Wechsler Test of Adult Reading. Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Rossi, JJ, Stach, A, Bradley, NJ (1963). Effects of treatment of male alcoholics in a mental hospital. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 24, 91–98.Google Scholar
Stinchfield, R, Owen, P (1998). Hazelden’s model of treatment and its outcome. Addictive Behaviours 23, 669–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UKATT Research Team (2005). Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: Findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). British Medical Journal 331, 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, JI, Stein, JA, Grella, CE (2007). Role of social support and self-efficacy in treatment outcomes among clients with co-occurring disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 89, 267–274.Google Scholar
Wilson, BA, Alderman, N, Burgess, PW, Emslie, H, Evans, JJ (1996). BADS: Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome. Thames Valley Test Company: Bury St. Edmunds, England.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2003). The World Health Report. WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar
Zimet, GD, Dahlem, NW, Zimet, SG, Farley, GK (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment 52, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar