Our objectives were to review the effectiveness of psychosocial modalities in the treatment of alcohol use disorders and problems, and to examine the impact of therapists on treatment outcome, the evidence on best practices for comorbid conditions, and the evidence on treatment matching. We based our review on published systematic reviews of this topic after 2000. There is strong evidence that some, but not all, psychosocial treatments are effective in treating alcohol problems. Those with the strongest empirical support are motivational enhancement therapy, various cognitive-behavioural interventions, and brief interventions. Meta-analyses for several of these modalities suggest typical effect sizes in the low-to-moderate range. When these modalities have been compared with one another in well-designed clinical trials, they have been shown to be of comparable effectiveness. There is little basis on which to recommend one of these modalities over another but good reason to select from among them.
BerglundMThelanderSJonssonE.Treating alcohol and drug abuse. An evidenced based review. Weinheim (DE): Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA; 2003.
2.
MillerWRWilbournePHetemaJE. What works? A summary of alcohol treatment outcome research. In: HesterRKMillerWR, editors. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives. 3rd ed.Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 2003. p 13–63.
3.
UKATT Research Team. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: Findings of the randomised alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ. 2005;331:541.
4.
RaistrickDHeatherNGodfreyC.Review of the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. London (GB): National Treatment Agency for Substance Abuse; 2006.
5.
GordonLGravesNHawkesA, A review of the cost-effectiveness of face-to-face behavioural interventions for smoking, physical activity, diet and alcohol. Chronic Illn. 2007;3:101–129.
6.
MillerWRWilbourneP.Mesa Grande: A methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 2002;97:265–277.
7.
Marinelli-CaseyPJDomierCRawsonRA. The gap between research and practice in substance abuse treatment. Psychiatr Serv. 2002;53:984–987.
8.
NajavitsLMCrits-ChristophPDierbergerB.Clinicians' impact on the quality of substance use treatment. Subst Use Misuse. 2000;35:2161–2190.
9.
Australian Institute of Primary Care. Comorbidity treatment service model evaluation. Victoria (AU): Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University; 2009.
10.
BanduraA.Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1986.
11.
ProudeELopatkoOLintzerisN, The treatment of alcohol problems: A review of the evidence. Sydney (AU): Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing; 2009.
12.
MillerWRRollnickS.Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. 2nd ed.New York (NY): Guildford Press; 2002.
13.
MillerWRolnickS.Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 1991.
14.
HumphreysK.Professional interventions that facilitate 12-step self-help group involvement. Alcohol Res Health. 1999;23:93–98.
15.
MillerWRHesterRK. The effectiveness of alcoholism treatment: What research reveals. In: MillerWRHeatherN, editors. Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change. New York (NY): Plenum Press; 1986. p 121–174.
16.
FinneyJW. Limitations in using existing alcohol treatment trials to develop practice guidelines. Addiction. 2000;35:1491–1500.
17.
HowardMO. Assessing the comparative cost-effectiveness of alcoholism treatments: A comment on Holder, Longabaugh, Miller and Rubonis. J Stud Alcohol. 1993;54:667–675.
18.
FinneyJWMonahanSC. The cost effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: A second approximation. J Stud Alcohol. 1996;57:229–243.
19.
HolderHLongabaughRMillerWR, The cost effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: A first approximation. J Stud Alcohol. 1991;52:517–540.
20.
MillerWRBrownJSimpsonTL, What works? A methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature. In: HesterRKMillerWR, editors. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives. Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 1995. p 12–44.
21.
HettemaJSteeleJMillerWR. Motivational interviewing. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:91–111.
22.
VasilakiEIHosierSGCoxWM. The efficacy of motivational interviewing as a brief intervention for excessive drinking: A meta-analytic review. Alcohol Alcohol. 2006;41:328–335.
23.
MagillMRayLA. Cognitive-behavioral treatment with adult alcohol and illicit drug users: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70:516–527.
24.
RoozenHGBoulogneJJvan TulderMW, A systematic review of the effectiveness of the community reinforcement approach in alcohol, cocaine and opioid addiction. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:1–13.
25.
PowersMBVedelEEmmelkampPMG. Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) for alcohol and drug use disorders: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008;28:952–962.
26.
MartinTLaRoweSDMalcolmR.Progress in cue exposure therapy for the treatment of addictive disorders: A review update. Open Addict J. 2010;3:92–101.
27.
Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Treatment main effects and matching effects on drinking during treatment. J Stud Alcohol. 1998;59:631–639.
28.
Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22:1300–1311.
29.
OuimettePCFinneyJWMoosRH. Twelve-step and cognitive-behavioral treatment for substance abuse: A comparison of treatment effectiveness. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:230–240.
30.
FerriMAmatoLDavoliM.Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD005032.
31.
KaskutasLA. Comments on the Cochrane Review on Alcoholics Anonymous effectiveness. Addiction. 2008;103:1402–1403.
32.
MesserSWampoldBE. Let's face facts, common factors are more potent than specific therapy ingredients. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2002;9:21–25.
33.
ReisnerAD. The common factors, empirically validated treatments and the recovery models of therapeutic change. Psychol Rec. 2005;55:377–399.
34.
NajavitsLMWeissR.Variations in therapist effectiveness in the treatment of patients with substance use disorders: An empirical review. Addiction. 1994;89:679–688.
35.
Project MATCH Research Group. Therapist effects in three treatments for alcohol problems. Psychother Res. 1998;8:455–474.
36.
McLellanATWoodyGLuborskyL, Is the counselor an active ingredient in substance abuse rehabilitation? An examination of treatment success among four counsellors. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1988;176:423–430.
37.
OkiishiJCLambertMJEggettD, An analysis of therapist effects: Toward providing feedback to individual therapists on their clients' psychotherapy outcomes. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62:1157–1172.
38.
MillerWRTaylorCWestJ.Focused versus broad spectrum behavior therapy for problem drinkers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1980;48:590–601.
39.
LebowJKellyJKnobloch-FedderLM, Relationship factors in treating substance use disorders. In: CastonguayLGBeutlerLE, editors. Principles of therapeutic change that work. New York (NY): Oxford Press Inc; 2006. p 293–318.
40.
DiClementeCCCarrollKMMillerWR, A look inside treatment: Therapist effects, the therapeutic alliance, and the process of intentional behavior change. In: BaborTFDel BocaFK, editors. Treatment Matching in Alcoholism. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2003. p 166–183.
41.
LuborskyLO'BrienCP. Therapist success and its determinants. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;42:602–611.
42.
Crits-ChristophP.Meta-analysis of therapist effects in psychotherapy outcome studies. Psychother Res. 1991;1:81–91.
43.
MillerWRBenefeldRGToniganJ.Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: A controlled comparison of two therapist styles. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993;61:455–461.
44.
WilsonGT. Manual-based treatments: The clinical application of research fndings. Behav Res Ther. 1996;34:295–314.
45.
AddisMECardemilEV. Does manualization improve therapy outcomes? In: NorcrossJCBeutlerLELevantRF, editors. Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2006. p 131–160.
46.
RegierDFarmerMRaeD, Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse: Results from the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) Study. JAMA. 1990;264:2511–2518.
47.
DegenhardtLHallW.Patterns of co-morbidity between alcohol use and other substance use in the Australian population. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2003;22:7–13.
48.
StinsonFSGrantBFDawsonDA, Comorbidity between DSM-IV alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;80:105–116.
49.
ChanYDennisMLFunkRR. Prevalence and comorbidity of major internalizing and externalizing problems among adolescents and adults presenting to substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:14–24.
50.
Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. Guidelines for the treatment of alcohol problems. Sydney (AU): Commonwealth of Australia: Department of Health and Aging; 2009.
51.
GossopMCarrollKM. Disulfiram, cocaine, and alcohol: Two outcomes for the price of one?Alcohol Alcohol. 2006;41:119–120.
52.
PrendergastMPodusDFinneyJ, Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Addiction. 2006;101:1546–1560.
53.
PetrakisILGonzalezGRosenheckR, Comorbidity of alcoholism and psychiatric disorders. Alcohol Res Health. 2002;26:81–89.
54.
TrullTJJahngSTomkoRL, Revised NESARC personality disorder diagnoses: Gender, prevalence, and comorbidity with substance dependence disorders. J Pers Disord. 2010;24:412–426.
55.
RushBRCastelS.Validation and comparison of screening tools for mental disorders in the substance abuse treatment population. Presented at the International Conference on Outcomes Measurement (ICOM); Bethesda (MA); 2008.
56.
RushBR. On the screening and assessment of mental disorders among clients seeking help from specialized substance abuse treatment services: An international symposium. (Editorial). Int J Ment Health Addiction. 2008;6:1–6.
57.
Health Canada. Best practices: Concurrent mental health and substance use disorders. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; 2002.
58.
FlynnePBrownB.Co-occurring disorders in substance abuse treatment: Issues and prospects. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:36–47.
59.
ReedyARHallJA. Treatment issues with substance use disorder clients who have mood or anxiety disorders. Ment Health Subst Use. 2008;1:44–53.
60.
ZikosEGillKJCharneyDA. Personality disorders among alcoholic outpatients: Prevalence and course in treatment. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55:65–73.
61.
SullivanLEFiellinDAO'ConnorPG. The prevalence and impact of alcohol problems in major depression: A systematic review. Am J Med. 2005;118:330–341.
62.
KavanaghDJMueserKT. Current evidence on integrated treatment for serious mental disorder and substance misuse. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening [Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association]. 2007;44:618–637.
63.
RushBRNadeauL.On the integration of mental health and substance use services and systems. In: CooperD, editor. Responding in mental health. Oxford (GB): Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2011. Chapter 13, p 148–175. Mental Health-Substance Use series. Book 3.
64.
HesseM.Integrated psychological treatment for substance use and co-morbid anxiety or depression vs treatment for substance use alone. A systematic review of the published literature. BMC Psychiatry. 2009;20:1–8.
65.
TietQQMausbachB.Treatments for patients with dual diagnosis: A review. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31:513–536.
66.
HorsfallJClearyMHuntGE, Psychosocial treatments for people with co-occurring severe mental illnesses and substance use disorders (dual diagnosis): A review of empirical evidence. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2009;17:24–34.
67.
ClearyMHuntGEMathesonS, Psychosocial treatment programs for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse. Schizophr Bull. 2008;34:226–228.
68.
DrakeREO'NealELWallachMA. A systematic review of psychosocial research on psychosocial interventions for people with co-occurring severe mental and substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:123–138.
69.
SwinsonRPAntonyMMBleauP, Clinical practice guidelines: Management of anxiety disorders. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51:S1–S93.
70.
ParikhSVSegaZ VGrigoriadisS, Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder in adults. II. Psychotherapy alone or in combination with antidepressant medication. J Affect Disord; 2009.
71.
GlaserF.Anybody got a match? Treatment research and the matching hypothesis. In: EdwardsGGrantM, editors. Alcoholism treatment in transition. Baltimore (MD): University Park Press; 1980.
72.
PattisonEM. A systems approach to alcoholism treatment. In: PattisonEMKaufmanE, editors. Encyclopedic handbook of alcoholism. New York (NY): Gardner Press; 1982. p 1080–1108.
73.
BuhringerG.Allocating treatment options to patient profiles: Clinical art or science. Addiction. 2006;101:646–652.
74.
FinneyJW. Enhancing substance abuse treatment evaluations: Examining mediators and moderators of treatment effects. J Subst Abuse. 1995;7:135–150.
75.
WitkiewitzKHartzlerBDonovanD.Matching motivation enhancement treatment to client motivation: Re-examining the Project MATCH motivation-matching hypothesis. Addiction. 2010;105:1403–1413.
76.
UKATT Research Team. UK Alcohol Treatment Trial client-treatment matching effects. Addiction. 2008;103:228–238.
77.
OuimettePCFinneyJWGimaK, A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: III. Examining mechanisms underlying patient-treatment matching hypotheses for 12-step and cognitive-behavioral treatments for substance abuse. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1999;23:545–551.
78.
FinneyJWNoyesCACouttsAJ, Evaluating substance abuse treatment process models: I. Changes on proximal outcome variables during 12-step and cognitive-behavioral treatment. J Stud Alcohol. 1998;59:371–380.
79.
FinneyJWMoosRHHumphreysK.A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: II. Linking proximal outcomes of 12-step and cognitive-behavioral treatment to substance use outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1999;23:537–544.
80.
MorgensternJLongabaughR.Cognitive-behavioral treatment for alcohol dependence: A review of evidence for its hypothesized mechanisms of action. Addiction. 2000;95:1475–1490.
81.
RehmJ.Key future research questions on mediators and moderators of behaviour change processes for substance abuse. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17:S83–S87.
82.
BuhringerGWittchenHUGottlebeK, Why people change? The role of cognitive-control processes in the onset and cessation of substance abuse disorders. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17:S4–S15.
83.
HavassyBAlvidrezJOwenK.Comparisons of patients with comorbid psychiatric and substance use disorders: Implications for treatment and service delivery. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:139–145.
84.
BaborT.Treatment for persons with substance use disorders: Mediators, moderators, and the need for a new research approach. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17:S45–S49.
85.
Health Canada. Best practices: Substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; 1999.
86.
TietQQIlganMAByrnesHF, Treatment setting and baseline substance use severity interact to predict patients' outcome. Addiction. 2007;102:432–440.
87.
MillerWRHesterRK. Inpatient alcoholism treatment: Who benefits?Am Psychol. 1986;41:794–805.
88.
MartinGWKoski-JannesAWeberT.Rethinking the role of residential treatment for individuals with substance use problems. Can J Commun Ment Health. 1998;17:61–78.
89.
GodfreyC.Assessing the cost-effectiveness of alcohol services. J Ment Health. 1994;3:3–21.
90.
RychtarikRGConnorsGJWhitneyRB, Treatment settings for persons with alcoholism: Evidence for matching clients to inpatient versus outpatient care. J Consult Clin Psychology. 2000;68:277–289.
91.
FinneyJWMoosRHWilbournePL. Effects of treatment setting duration and amount on patient outcomes. In: RiesRKMillerSCFiellinDA, editors. Principles of addiction medicine. 4th ed.Philadelphia (PA): Wolters Flewers Health; 2009. p 379–386.
92.
BienTHMillerWRToniganJS. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: A review. Addiction. 1993;88:315–336.
93.
RayluNOeiTLooJ.The current status and future direction of self-help treatments for problem gamblers. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008;28:1372–1385.
94.
MoyerAFinneyJWSwearingenCE, Brief interventions for alcohol problems: A meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations. Addiction. 2002;97:279–292.
95.
Koski-JannesACunninghamJ.Interest in different forms of self-help in a general population sample of drinkers. Addict Behav. 2001;26:91–99.
96.
KanerEFDickinsonHOBeyerFR, Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD004148.
97.
NilsenPKanerEBaborT.Brief interventions three decades on: An overview of research fndings and strategies for more widespread implementation. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2008;25:453–467. Nordisk Alkohol Nark has an annual supplement in English: Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.
98.
GastfriendDRMee-LeeD.The ASAM patient placement criteria: Context, concepts and continuing development. J Addict Dis. 2003;22(Suppl 1):1–8.
99.
DeckDGabrielRKnudsenJ, Impact of patient placement criteria on substance abuse treatment under the Oregon Health Plan. J Addict Dis. 2003;22:27–44.
100.
KosankeNMaguraSStainesG, Feasibility of matching alcohol patients to ASAM levels of care. Am J Addict. 2002;11:124–134.
101.
MaguraSStainesGKosankeN, Predictive validity of the ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for naturalistically matched vs mismatched alcoholism patients. Am J Addict. 2003;12:386–397.
102.
GreenfieldSFBrooksAJGordonSM, Substance abuse treatment entry, retention, and outcome in women: A review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;86:1–21.
103.
AshleySOMarsdenMEBradyTM. Effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programming for women: A review. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2003;29:19–53.
104.
McLellanATGrissomGRZanisD, Problem-service ‘matching’ in addiction treatment: A prospective study in 4 programs. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54:730–735.
105.
HserYIPolinskyMLMaglioneM, Matching clients' needs with drug treatment services. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1999;16:299–305.
106.
McLellanATLewisDO'BrienC, Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284:1689–1695.
107.
DennisMLScottCKFunkRR, The duration and correlates of addiction and treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;28:S51–S62.
108.
McKayJR. Is there a case for extended interventions for alcohol and drug disorders?Addict. 2005;100:1594–1610.
109.
RitterACameronJ.A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2006;25:611–624.
110.
DennisMLScottCKFunkRR. An experimental evaluation of recovery management checkups (RMC) for people with chronic substance use disorders. Eval Program Plann. 2003;26:339–352.
111.
ScottCKDennisML. Results from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the impact of quarterly recovery management checkups with adult chronic substance users. Addiction. 2009;104:959–971.
112.
UKATT Research Team. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: Findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ. 2005;331:531–541.
113.
RushBRCoreaLMartinGW. Monitoring alcohol and other drug treatment: What would an optimal system look like?Contemp Drug Probl. 2009;36:545–574.
114.
Ontario Substance Abuse Bureau. Setting the course: A framework for integrating addiction treatment services in Ontario. Toronto (ON): Government of Ontario; 1999.
115.
SobellMBSobellLC. Stepped care as a heuristic approach to the treatment of alcohol problems. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:573–579.
116.
Institute of Medicine. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1990.
117.
MillerWRCarrollKM. Drawing the science together: Ten principles, ten recommendations. In: MillerWRCarrollKM, editors. Rethinking substance abuse: What the science shows and what we should do about it. New York (NY): Guildford Press; 2006. p 293–312.
118.
National Treatment Strategy Working Group. A systems approach to substance use in Canada: Recommendations for a national treatment strategy [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada; 2008. Available from: http://www.nationalframework-cadrenational.ca/uploads/files/TWS_Treatment/nts-report-eng.pdf.
