Abstinence Violation Effect AVE What It Is & Relapse Prevention Strategies

The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques in addictions research has increased dramatically in the last decade [131] and many of these studies have been instrumental in providing initial evidence on neural correlates of substance use and relapse. In one study of treatment-seeking methamphetamine users [132], researchers examined fMRI activation during a decision-making task and obtained information on relapse over one year later. Based on activation patterns in several cortical regions they were able to correctly identify 17 of 18 participants who relapsed and 20 of 22 who did not. Functional imaging is increasingly being incorporated in treatment outcome studies (e.g., [133]) and there are increasing efforts to use imaging approaches to predict relapse [134]. While the overall number of studies examining neural correlates of relapse remains small at present, the coming years will undoubtedly see a significant escalation in the number of studies using fMRI to predict response to psychosocial and pharmacological treatments.

Learn From Relapse

McCrady [37] conducted a comprehensive review of 62 alcohol treatment outcome studies comprising 13 psychosocial approaches. Two approaches–RP and brief intervention–qualified as empirically validated treatments based on established criteria. Interestingly, Miller and Wilbourne’s [21] review of clinical trials, which evaluated the efficacy of 46 different alcohol treatments, ranked “relapse prevention” as 35th out of 46 treatments based on methodological quality and treatment effect sizes. However, many of the treatments ranked in the top 10 (including brief interventions, social skills training, community reinforcement, behavior contracting, behavioral marital therapy, and self-monitoring) incorporate RP components. These two reviews highlighted the increasing difficulty of classifying interventions as specifically constituting RP, given that many treatments for substance use disorders (e.g., cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT)) are based on the cognitive behavioral model of relapse developed for RP [16].

2. Relationship between goal choice and treatment outcomes

This standard persisted in SUD treatment even as strong evidence emerged that a minority of individuals who receive 12-Step treatment achieve and maintain long-term abstinence (e.g., Project MATCH Research Group, 1998). For example, successful navigation of high-risk situations may increase self-efficacy (one’s perceived capacity to cope with an impending situation or task; [26]), in turn decreasing relapse probability. Conversely, a return to the target behavior can undermine self-efficacy, increasing the risk of future lapses. Additionally, attitudes or beliefs about the causes and meaning of a lapse may influence whether a full relapse ensues. Viewing a lapse as a personal failure may lead to feelings of guilt and abandonment of the behavior change goal [24]. This reaction, termed the Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE; [16]), is considered more likely when one holds a dichotomous view of relapse and/or neglects to consider situational explanations for lapsing.

Cognitive Factors in Addictive Processes

Thus, studies will need to emphasize measures of substance-related problems in addition to reporting the degree of substance use (e.g., frequency, quantity). Despite the growth of the harm reduction movement globally, research and implementation of nonabstinence treatment in the U.S. has lagged. Furthermore, abstinence remains a gold standard treatment outcome in pharmacotherapy research for drug use the abstinence violation effect refers to disorders, even after numerous calls for alternative metrics of success (Volkow, 2020). Models of nonabstinence psychosocial treatment for drug use have been developed and promoted by practitioners, but little empirical research has tested their effectiveness. This resistance to nonabstinence treatment persists despite strong theoretical and empirical arguments in favor of harm reduction approaches.

These properties of the abstinence violation effect also apply to individuals who do not have a goal to abstain, but instead have a goal to restrict their use within certain self-determined limits. The limit violation effect describes what happens when these individuals fail to restrict their use within their predetermined limits and the subsequent effects of this failure. These individuals also experience negative emotions similar to those experienced by the abstinence violators and may also drink more to cope with these negative emotions. In a similar fashion, the nature of these attributions determines whether the violation will lead to full-blown relapse.

Additionally, the intervention had no effect on subjective measures of craving, suggesting the possibility that intervention effects may have been specific to implicit cognitive processes [62]. Overall, research on implicit cognitions stands to enhance understanding of dynamic relapse processes and could ultimately aid in predicting lapses during high-risk situations. In addition to issues with administrative discharge, abstinence-only treatment may contribute to high rates of individuals not completing SUD treatment. About 26% of all U.S. treatment episodes end by individuals leaving the treatment program prior to treatment completion (SAMHSA, 2019b). Studies which have interviewed participants and staff of SUD treatment centers have cited ambivalence about abstinence as among the top reasons for premature treatment termination (Ball, Carroll, Canning-Ball, & Rounsaville, 2006; Palmer, Murphy, Piselli, & Ball, 2009; Wagner, Acier, & Dietlin, 2018). One study found that among those who did not complete an abstinence-based (12-Step) SUD treatment program, ongoing/relapse to substance use was the most frequently-endorsed reason for leaving treatment early (Laudet, Stanick, & Sands, 2009).

• Upon breaking the self-imposed rule, individuals often experience negative emotions such as guilt, shame, disappointment, and a sense of failure.
• Examples of high-risk contexts include emotional or cognitive states (e.g., negative affect, diminished self-efficacy), environmental contingencies (e.g., conditioned drug cues), or physiological states (e.g., acute withdrawal).
• Similarly, self-regulation ability, outcome expectancies, and the abstinence violation effect could all be experimentally manipulated, which could eventually lead to further refinements of RP strategies.
• Detailed discussions of relapse in relation to NDST and catastrophe theory are available elsewhere [10,31,34].
• Multiple versions of harm reduction psychotherapy for alcohol and drug use have been described in detail but not yet studied empirically.

A critical implication is that rather than signaling a failure in the behavior change process, lapses can be considered temporary setbacks that present opportunities for new learning to occur. In viewing relapse as a common (albeit undesirable) event, emphasizing contextual antecedents over internal causes, and distinguishing relapse from treatment failure, the RP model introduced a comprehensive, flexible and optimistic alternative to traditional https://ecosoberhouse.com/ approaches. Researchers have long posited that offering goal choice (i.e., nonabstinence and abstinence treatment options) may be key to engaging more individuals in SUD treatment, including those earlier in their addictions (Bujarski et al., 2013; Mann et al., 2017; Marlatt, Blume, & Parks, 2001; Sobell & Sobell, 1995). A key feature of the dynamic model is its emphasis on the complex interplay between tonic and phasic processes.

As outlined in this review, the last decade has seen notable developments in the RP literature, including significant expansion of empirical work with relevance to the RP model. Overall, many basic tenets of the RP model have received support and findings regarding its clinical effectiveness have generally been supportive. RP modules are standard to virtually all psychosocial interventions for substance use [17] and an increasing number of self-help manuals are available to assist both therapists and clients. RP strategies can now be disseminated using simple but effective methods; for instance, mail-delivered RP booklets are shown to reduce smoking relapse [135,136].

G Alan Marlatt

Efforts to develop, test and refine theoretical models are critical to enhancing the understanding and prevention of relapse [1,2,14]. A major development in this respect was the reformulation of Marlatt’s cognitive-behavioral relapse model to place greater emphasis on dynamic relapse processes [8]. Whereas most theories presume linear relationships among constructs, the reformulated model (Figure ​(Figure2)2) views relapse as a complex, nonlinear process in which various factors act jointly and interactively to affect relapse timing and severity. Against this backdrop, both tonic (stable) and phasic (transient) influences interact to determine relapse likelihood. Tonic processes include distal risks–stable background factors that determine an individual’s “set point” or initial threshold for relapse [8,31].