Literature DB >> 34895955

The phenotype of recovery VII: Delay discounting mediates the relationship between time in recovery and recovery progress.

William H Craft1, Allison N Tegge2, Liqa N Athamneh3, Devin C Tomlinson1, Roberta Freitas-Lemos3, Warren K Bickel4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Substance use disorders (SUDs) remain challenging maladies to treat in the United States and impose significant societal costs. Despite these challenges, a significant number of individuals endorse being in recovery from SUD. The scientific understanding of SUD recovery has evolved to include not only improvements in substance use but also improvements in personal wellness and psychosocial functioning. The devaluation of future rewards (delay discounting; DD) is broadly associated with SUD inception and outcomes. We sought to investigate the relationship between DD, time in recovery, and recovery progress.
METHODS: We conducted an online assessment of 127 individuals in recovery from SUD who the study recruited via the International Quit and Recovery Registry (IQRR). The research team obtained measures of recovery progress via the Addiction Recovery Questionnaire (ARQ) and the Treatment Effectiveness Assessment (TEA). Additionally, the study collected measures of DD, time in recovery, and endorsement of abstinence in recovery (i.e., requiring abstinence vs. not). We utilized linear regression to test for associations among these variables and performed a mediation analysis to test the role of DD in mediating the relationship between time in recovery and measures of recovery progress.
RESULTS: Time in recovery was positively associated with the ARQ (p < .001) and TEA (p < .001). Furthermore, an individual's delay discounting rate mediated the relationship between time in recovery and ARQ/TEA. Of the participants, 66% endorsed recovery requiring total abstinence from alcohol and drugs. Last, through an exhaustive model selection, the study did not find an individual's endorsement of abstinence in recovery to be a primary predictor of recovery progress.
CONCLUSIONS: This study presents evidence that, for individuals in recovery, the temporal view (i.e., focus on immediate vs. future rewards) is a significant influence on recovery progress. Additionally, an individual's endorsement of abstinence in recovery was not significantly associated with recovery progress, suggesting the importance of a holistic view of SUD recovery. These findings contribute to the understanding of recovery as a multidimensional process and provide further support for DD as a behavioral marker of addiction.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delay discounting; Recovery; Recovery progress; Substance use disorder; Treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34895955      PMCID: PMC8940660          DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108665

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat        ISSN: 0740-5472


  71 in total

1.  Examining the factor structure of the recovery assessment scale.

Authors:  Patrick W Corrigan; Mark Salzer; Ruth O Ralph; Yvette Sangster; Lorraine Keck
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.306

2.  Determinants of health-related quality of life of opiate users at entry to low-threshold methadone programs.

Authors:  Peggy Millson; Laurel Challacombe; Paul J Villeneuve; Carol J Strike; Benedikt Fischer; Ted Myers; Ron Shore; Shaun Hopkins
Journal:  Eur Addict Res       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 3.  Impact of general cognition and executive function deficits on addiction treatment outcomes: Systematic review and discussion of neurocognitive pathways.

Authors:  Sara Domínguez-Salas; Carmen Díaz-Batanero; Oscar Martin Lozano-Rojas; Antonio Verdejo-García
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 8.989

4.  Quality of life measures and outcome in alcohol-dependent men and women.

Authors:  J H Foster; T J Peters; E J Marshall
Journal:  Alcohol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.405

5.  Drinking in the year after treatment as a predictor of three-year drinking outcomes.

Authors:  Stephen A Maisto; Patrick R Clifford; Robert L Stout; Christine M Davis
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol       Date:  2006-11

6.  Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis of continuous associations.

Authors:  Michael Amlung; Lana Vedelago; John Acker; Iris Balodis; James MacKillop
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 6.526

7.  Setting a goal could help you control: Comparing the effect of health goal versus general episodic future thinking on health behaviors among cigarette smokers and obese individuals.

Authors:  Liqa N Athamneh; Madison D Stein; Elysia H Lin; Jeffrey S Stein; Alexandra M Mellis; Kirstin M Gatchalian; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 3.157

8.  Why Do Those With Long-Term Substance Use Disorders Stop Abusing Substances? A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Henning Pettersen; Anne Landheim; Ivar Skeie; Stian Biong; Morten Brodahl; Victoria Benson; Larry Davidson
Journal:  Subst Abuse       Date:  2018-02-07

9.  Unstuck in time: episodic future thinking reduces delay discounting and cigarette smoking.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Stein; A George Wilson; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Tinuke Oluyomi Daniel; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 10.  Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 202.731

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.