UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 18.4 Free with a free account
Polydrug Use and Evidence-Based Treatment Approaches for Substance-Related Conditions
Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 18: Substance-Related Disorders: Understanding Addiction and TreatmentSection 18.4 · lesson 69 of 9718 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Abnormal Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Abnormal Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Schizophrenia, Core Symptoms, Clinical Subtypes, and Active vs. Deficit Symptoms →← Hallucinogens and Marijuana Use, Effects, Myths, and RealitiesNext lesson: Schizophrenia, Core Symptoms, Clinical Subtypes, and Active vs. Deficit Symptoms →
In this lesson
Engagement, integration, and recovery that holds.
- Explain why polydrug use and co-occurring conditions shape treatment
- Describe ambivalence, and why confrontation fails
- Describe the main treatment approaches and their evidence
- Explain treatment goals, barriers, and recovery capital
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (2,442 words). Read along, or search it.
Substance-Related Disorders: Understanding Addiction and Treatment
Polydrug Use and Evidence-Based Treatment
This final section of chapter eighteen covers polydrug use, and the evidence-based approaches to treating substance-related conditions. We look at why most treatment failures are really engagement failures, and at the approaches with the strongest evidence. We cover treatment goals, the barriers people face, recovery, and prevention, and we finish with two composite cases.
Before You Begin
Treatable - and Relapse Is Not Failure
This material is educational. It is not a basis for diagnosis, and it is not a treatment guide. If you are concerned about your own or another person's use, please speak with a qualified professional. Two statements belong at the outset. Substance use disorders are treatable, and recovery is a common outcome. And relapse is a feature of a chronic condition, not a failure of the person. Both are stated first because this material is about treatment, and the opposite impressions are widespread. They discourage people from seeking help.
Polydrug Use
One Substance Alone Is the Exception
Polydrug use means using more than one substance, whether together or across a period. The general finding is that using a single substance alone is the exception rather than the rule. That has three consequences. For assessment. An assessment organized around one substance will systematically miss the rest of the picture. The domains are assessed across the whole pattern of use. For medical risk, stated only in general terms. Combining substances increases danger. Nothing more is described, and nothing here implies that any combination is safer than another. And for treatment. Different classes carry different withdrawal risks and different treatment options, so a plan built around one substance may not fit the person. Where withdrawal management is needed, it is medically supervised.
Figure 18.4.3
3 Service Models for Co-Occurring Conditions
Co-occurrence with anxiety, depressive, and psychotic conditions is high. What matters here is how services have responded to it. Sequential treatment requires one condition to be addressed before the other. Its characteristic failure is that each service declines to begin until the other has finished. So the person is turned away by both. Parallel treatment addresses both at once, in separate services. Its failure is that the two plans are uncoordinated, sometimes contradictory, and the person carries the burden of integrating them. Integrated treatment, with one team, one plan, and both conditions addressed together, is the current standard. It needs a workforce competent in both areas, a single care plan, and services commissioned to provide it. That is why it remains less available than its evidence warrants. Treat both from the start. Sequencing within one integrated plan is a legitimate judgment made with the person. It is not the same as sequential treatment across services.
The Chronic Condition Framing
What It Gets Right - and Wrong
Substance use disorders are often described as chronic, relapsing conditions, like other long-term conditions. What that framing gets right. The pattern of improvement and return genuinely resembles other conditions needing sustained management, and treatment response rates are broadly comparable. And it shifts relapse from moral failure to an expected clinical event, which really changes how services respond. The criticism is that it understates recovery without treatment. Many people who meet criteria at one point do not at a later point, often without any service contact. That does not fit a chronic model well. The framing may also imply a permanence the evidence does not support. And describing someone as having a lifelong condition, when they may not, is not a neutral act.
Ambivalence
The Material of the Work, Not an Obstacle
Ambivalence means wanting to change and not wanting to, at the same time. It is the central clinical feature in this area. Treating it as an obstacle, rather than as the thing being worked with, is the most common clinical error. It is not irrationality. The person has genuine reasons on both sides. The substance is doing something for them, and change involves real losses as well as gains. Confrontational approaches fail for a predictable reason. When a clinician argues for change, the person supplies the arguments against it. That is how people respond to being argued at, not a symptom. So the person spends the session stating their reasons not to change, and hearing themselves do it, which strengthens that position. Confrontation also damages the relationship engagement depends on, and the evidence does not support it. So notice who is arguing for change. If it is you, the person is arguing against it by default. Non-attendance is information about the fit between person and service, not a verdict on motivation. And practical barriers, like an impossible appointment time or no childcare, often masquerade as ambivalence.
Stages of Change
Useful for Readiness - Weaker Than Its Popularity
The transtheoretical model describes change as passing through stages. Pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. Its clinical use lies in matching intervention to readiness. Offering action-oriented treatment to someone not yet considering change is a common, predictable mismatch. But the honest statement is that its empirical support is weaker than its popularity suggests. The stages are hard to distinguish reliably, and movement between them is less orderly than the model implies. And stage-matched interventions have not consistently outperformed unmatched ones. It remains a useful framework for thinking about readiness. It should not be presented as an established mechanism of change.
Motivational Interviewing
A Stance That Evokes, Not Installs
Motivational interviewing is a collaborative approach to resolving ambivalence. The clinician draws out the person's own reasons for change, rather than supplying them. It is described here as a stance, not a technique, and not a protocol you could apply from this description. Its features follow directly from why confrontation fails. The clinician does not argue for change, because the person would then argue against it. Motivation is evoked, not installed, because people are more persuaded by what they hear themselves say. The relationship is collaborative, not expert-directed. And the person's autonomy is treated as real, including their right to decide not to change. That is both ethical and practical, since asserting control a clinician does not have produces resistance. Its evidence base is substantial, especially as a brief intervention, and for improving engagement with further treatment. Its effects are real, and generally modest.
Cognitive-Behavioral Work and Relapse Prevention
What a Lapse Is Taken to Mean
Cognitive-behavioral approaches apply learning and cognitive principles, and are described here by rationale. Functional analysis identifies the triggers, situations, and consequences that maintain use. Cue-conditioned craving is the mechanism being mapped. Coping skills work builds responses other than use for high-risk situations, because removing a behavior without replacing its function leaves a gap. And cognitive work on expectancies addresses beliefs about what the substance does, which are often more positive than the person's own experience supports. Relapse prevention adds three concepts. High-risk situations are the circumstances in which return to use is most likely. Identifying them in advance makes planning possible. A lapse is a single instance of use. A relapse is a return to the previous pattern. The first does not require the second. The abstinence violation effect connects them. A person committed to abstinence lapses, experiences it as total failure, concludes the commitment is void, and continues. So the belief about what a lapse means is what converts it into a relapse. And relapse is information, not failure. It shows what was not yet in place.
More Approaches
Contingency, Family, and Peer Support
Three more approaches. Contingency management applies reinforcement directly. Agreed behaviors, verified objectively, are followed by tangible reinforcement. The evidence is strong, especially for stimulant use disorders, where medication options are limited. Yet adoption is limited, by cost and administrative complexity. It is also limited by an objection, that people should not be rewarded for what they ought to do anyway. That objection is rarely raised elsewhere in healthcare, and it has the structure of the moral model. Family and couple approaches improve engagement and outcome. Relatives also need support in their own right. And working with relatives of someone not in treatment helps both the relative, and the chance the person later engages. Peer-led fellowship models are mutual-aid groups of people with shared experience, without professional leadership. Well-conducted studies of structured facilitation into them found outcomes comparable to established treatments. Some people find the spiritual framing of some models alienating, and secular alternatives exist. So fit matters. Offering only one framing loses the people it does not suit.
Pharmacological Treatment
By Clinical Function Only
Pharmacological treatment is described here by clinical function only. Every decision is prescriber-led and specialist. Some agents reduce craving. Some block or reduce the reinforcing effects of use, so the behavior is less reinforced. And substitution or maintenance approaches replace an unregulated substance with a prescribed agent of known composition, under clinical supervision. That stabilizes the person, and removes the harms of the unregulated supply. The evidence for maintenance treatment in opioid use disorder is strong, and it should be stated plainly. It is associated with substantial reductions in mortality, and better outcomes across many measures. And it is underused relative to that evidence. The objection that it merely substitutes one substance for another is widely made, and not supported by outcome evidence. It also misapplies the distinction between dependence and disorder. And holding the objection has measurable consequences, since it reduces an intervention that reduces deaths. Notice that the two approaches with the strongest evidence here, contingency management and maintenance treatment, are both underused. The gap is one of implementation, not knowledge.
Detoxification and Levels of Care
Preparation, Not Treatment - Intensity to Need
Detoxification is named here as a medically supervised activity, and nothing more is described. Withdrawal from some classes is dangerous. Two points matter. Detoxification is a preparation for treatment, not treatment itself. And detoxification alone predicts poor outcome. Without treatment after it, return to use is common, and the period afterward carries its own risks. A service offering it without a pathway into continuing care has provided an episode, not a treatment. Levels of care range from outpatient care, through intensive outpatient and residential care, to inpatient care where medical need requires it. The governing principle is that intensity should match need. More intensive is not better in itself. Care beyond a person's need is costly, disrupts the work, housing, and relationships that support recovery, and is not associated with better outcomes.
Table 18.4.4
Abstinence and Harm Reduction
Treatment goals divide into two orientations. Abstinence-oriented care aims at cessation, the outcome most reliably linked with resolving the harms. Its values hold that full recovery is achievable, and should be offered. Harm reduction aims to reduce the harms of use, whether or not use stops. Its values hold that the person's own goals are the starting point, and that someone who will not accept abstinence is still entitled to care. Look at the evidence row. Abstinence is associated with the best outcomes for people who achieve and sustain it. Harm reduction is associated with reduced mortality, and reaches people who would not otherwise present. So neither is empirically empty. The debate is not evidence against values. Both have evidence, and both rest on values the evidence does not settle. Goals also change over time, in either direction. And in practice the two are less opposed than in argument. This course does not resolve the debate.
Policy, Compulsion, and Barriers
Where the Treatment Gap Lives
As a policy, harm reduction aims to reduce death, transmissible infection, injury, and social harm, whether or not use continues. Overdose prevention and reversal services are named here as a category only. The evidence generally supports the specific reductions these services target. Whether that settles the ethical question is a separate matter, on which people disagree. Treatment is also often mandated, through the justice system, or as a condition of work, housing, or child protection arrangements. The evidence is mixed. It does not show coercion improves outcomes, or that mandated treatment is useless. And consent obtained under threat of prison, or of losing children, is not straightforwardly consent. Then there are the barriers. Stigma, cost, waiting times, geography, justice involvement, and childcare and work constraints. Notice how many operate at the moment of deciding to seek help, before any service is reached. That is where most of the treatment gap lives, and where the response has to go.
Recovery and Prevention
Recovery Capital Makes Treatment Hold
Recovery is best defined broadly, as improvement in health and functioning, not cessation alone. A person who has stopped using, but whose housing, work, relationships, and health remain in difficulty, has achieved something narrower than recovery. Recovery capital is the useful concept. It is the total resources a person can draw on. Personal resources like skills and health, social ones like relationships, and structural ones like housing, work, and income. It predicts outcome, it can be changed, and much of it lies outside anything a treatment service delivers. That is why housing, work, and relationships belong in the treatment plan, not after it. On prevention, population measures affecting availability, price, and marketing have the better evidence. Information-only school programs, the most intuitive and widely used approach, have consistently performed poorly. Skills-based and family-based programs do better. The interventions that feel most obviously right are not always the ones that work best.
Case Vignette 1 (Composite)
Owen: Engagement Changes With the Approach
Now two composite cases, constructed for instruction. Owen is thirty-eight. He was referred twice before, and disengaged after two appointments each time. His record describes him as unmotivated, and lacking insight. Those appointments opened with the consequences of use, and the importance of stopping. Owen explained why his situation was different, and why stopping was not realistic. He did not return. The third clinician did not argue for change. She asked what Owen wanted his life to look like, what the substance did for him, and what he found difficult. Owen supplied, unprompted, most of the arguments for change the earlier clinicians had made for him. Having said them himself, he engaged with them differently. His goal was to reduce the effect on his work, not abstinence, and the clinician accepted that as the starting point. When clinicians argued for change, Owen took the other side, and strengthened it. When nobody took that side, he moved into it himself. The earlier records described a failure of the person. The accurate description is a failure of fit between the person and the approach.
Case Vignette 2 (Composite)
Anita: 9 Years On
Anita is fifty-one. Nine years ago, she was treated for a substance use disorder assessed as severe, alongside a depressive condition. She received integrated treatment for both, after previously being turned away under a sequential arrangement. Medically supervised withdrawal management was followed immediately by continuing treatment. She had prescriber-led medication, and psychological work on high-risk situations and coping. Over the next two years, she built recovery capital. Stable housing, a return to work, and a social network no longer organized around use. She had two lapses in the first eighteen months. Neither became a relapse, because her plan had addressed the abstinence violation effect explicitly. Each lapse revealed a high-risk situation nobody had anticipated, and the plan was revised. Today she is working, stably housed, with her relationships restored and her depression in remission. She describes recovery in terms of her life, not in terms of use. Recovery is a common outcome. Relapse is not failure. And recovery capital is not what follows treatment. It is part of what makes treatment hold.
About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Polydrug Use and Evidence-Based Treatment Approaches for Substance-Related Conditions
What is motivational interviewing?
What is the difference between a lapse and a relapse?
What is the difference between harm reduction and abstinence-based treatment?
What is recovery capital in addiction recovery?
About the Abnormal Psychology course
How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.
97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →