Suchergebnisse

Contents -- Preface -- Part I: About SRP -- INTRODUCTION -- Part II: Session-by-Session Guide -- PHASE 1: ASSESSMENT -- Description and Clinical Tools -- Therapist Checklist: Assessment -- Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS) -- Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) -- About the Personalized Alcohol Use Feedback Online Tool -- Commitment to Change Algorithm: Alcohol -- Commitment to Change Algorithm: Drugs -- About the IDTS-8 -- Inventory of Drug-Taking Situations (IDTS-8) -- Therapist Checklist: Troubleshooting for Undifferentiated IDTS-8 Profiles -- Assessment Summary Form

Many conflict studies regard formal democratic institutions as states' most important vehicle to reduce deprivation-motivated armed conflict against their governments. We argue that the wider concept of good governance—the extent to which policy making and implementation benefit the population at large—is better suited to analyze deprivation-based conflict. The article shows that the risk of conflict in countries characterized by good governance drops rapidly after a conflict has ended or after independence. In countries with poor governance, this process takes much longer. Hence, improving governance is important to reduce the incidence of conflict. We also decompose the effect of good governance into what can be explained by formal democratic institutions and less formal aspects of governance, and into what comes from economic development and what is due to how well countries are governed. We find that informal aspects of good governance to be at least as important as formal institutions in preventing conflict and that good governance has a clear effect over and beyond economic development.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present the first of two articles about substance abuse as a human disorder that defies resolution, with the primary care physician the intended audience.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is about the phenomenon of relapse as an extension of the formation of the underlying addictive‐oriented thinking. Both relapse and acceptance are about the "why" of substance abuse and not the "what."FindingsAccording to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the number of US adults who were classified as having substance dependence or abuse in 2008 based on criteria specified in the DSM‐IV was 22.2 million. Subtract on a mutually exclusive basis the 1.2 million who participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and the 1.7 million persons who are in some configuration of institutional therapy and this leaves 19.3 million persons as a potential pool of need.Research limitations/implicationsFocusing on the primary care physician is no more trivial than the two topics to be discussed.Social implicationsThe potential pool of need in the USA is much larger than the 19.3 million persons on the strength of what is implied by the to‐be‐developed views of relapse and acceptance as the "why" of substance abuse, as a subset of addictive‐oriented thinking.Originality/valueWhile the paper is in line with the World Health Organization's position that substance abuse is the most serious health problem globally, the advocated approach to the resolution of addiction is the efficiency of the relationship between the primary care physician and the patient.

BACKGROUND: A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in February 2018 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow‐up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 77 studies (67,285 participants), 15 of which are new to this update. We judged 21 studies to be at high risk of bias, 51 to be at unclear risk of bias, and five studies to be at low risk of bias. Forty‐eight studies included abstainers, and 29 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty‐six studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (18 studies), hospital admission (five studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted ...

Background A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. Objectives To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in February 2018 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow‐up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We included 77 studies (67,285 participants), 15 of which are new to this update. We judged 21 studies to be at high risk of bias, 51 to be at unclear risk of bias, and five studies to be at low risk of bias. Forty‐eight studies included abstainers, and 29 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty‐six studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (18 studies), hospital admission (five studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in ...

BACKGROUND: A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in May 2019 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow‐up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 81 studies (69,094 participants), five of which are new to this update. We judged 22 studies to be at high risk of bias, 53 to be at unclear risk of bias, and six studies to be at low risk of bias. Fifty studies included abstainers, and 30 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty‐eight studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (19 studies), hospital admission (six studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in ...