If 8 out of 10 addicts fail, is it really treatment?
The British drug treatment and recovery community has been squabbling recently over annual figures published by the National Treatment Agency (NTA) showing a marked increase in the number of people in drug treatment programs in Britain.
BBC home editor Mark Easton dug into the data and found that, of 202,000 people in treatment, a total of 7,324 “left the treatment programme drug free last year.” Ergo, “Just 3.6 % of those in treatment were discharged free of illegal drugs. “
Andrew Brown, a writer who covers addiction and substance abuse, cited studies showing relapse rates of 80 % or more, and wrote in the UK Telegraph that residential treatment advocates “can be fervent, and persuasive, in their enthusiasm, especially those individuals for whom rehab represents the turning point in their battle with addiction. But the fact is that the expected outcome from most people who enter a treatment centre remains—relapse.”
In the current issue of Newsweek, science writer Sharon Begley gives us some inadvertent clues. Since most residential treatment therapy revolves around individual and group counseling by psychologists, not M.D.s or prescribing psychiatrists, it is unnerving to discover, in a study highlighted by Begley, that clinical psychologists in general practice do not necessarily use “the interventions for which there is the strongest evidence of efficacy.” In other words, where’s the science?
This is an argument that severely rankles psychologists, naturally enough. But Begley writes that because of rigorous clinical trials, we know, for example, that cognitive behavioral therapy can be effective against depression, OCD, bulimia, and other strongly serotonin-mediated disorders. “Neuroscience,” writes Begley, “has identified the brain mechanisms by which these interventions work, giving them added credibility.”
What, then, do we find being used as therapeutic tools in such situations by psychotherapists in the trenches, including those in addiction treatment facilities? The answer, according to Begley, is likely to be “chaotic meditation therapy, facilitated communication, dolphin-assisted therapy, eye-movement desensitization....”
Begley could have added sacral cranial therapy, electric acupuncture, and a host of other questionable practices now subsumed under the broad rubric of clinical psychology. The point is obvious: With more than a thousand brands of psychotherapy currently being practiced, it is safe to say that the field is rife with conflicting opinions about what works.
The problem is that the addicted person has no way of knowing whether the clinical therapy on offer during treatment is backed up by enough sound scientific evidence to warrant participation.
As long as clinics are showing relapse rates not unlike those shown by alcoholics and other addicts going it alone, patients and those involved in their recovery have every reason to view addiction therapy programs with a critical eye.
addiction 
drugs 
alcoholics anonymous
