AIMS: (1) To assess the benefits of matching alcohol dependent clients to three treatments, based upon a priori hypotheses involving 11 client attributes; (2) to discuss the implications of these findings and of matching hypotheses previously reported from Project MATCH. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: (1) Clients receiving outpatient therapy (N = 952; 72% male); (2) clients receiving aftercare therapy following inpatient or day hospital treatment (N = 774; 80% male). INTERVENTION: Clients were randomly assigned to one of three 12-week, manual-guided, individual treatments: Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy (CBT), Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) or Twelve-Step Facilitation Therapy (TSF). DESIGN: Two parallel but independent randomized clinical trials were conducted, one with outpatients, one with aftercare clients. Participants were monitored over 15 months including a 1-year post-treatment period. Individual differences in response to treatment were modeled as a latent growth process and evaluated for 17 contrasts specified a priori. Outcome measures were percentage of days abstinent and drinks per drinking day. FINDINGS: Two a priori contrasts demonstrated significant post-treatment attribute by treatment interactions: (1) outpatients high in anger and treated in MET had better post-treatment drinking than in CBT; (2) aftercare clients high in alcohol dependence had better post-treatment outcomes in TSF; low dependence clients did better in CBT. Other matching effects varied over time, while still other interactions were opposite that predicted. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Anger and dependence should be considered when assigning clients to these three treatments; (2) considered together with the results of the primary hypotheses, matching effects contrasting these psychotherapies are not robust. Possible explanations include: (a) among the client variables and treatments tested, matching may not be an important factor in determining client outcomes; (b) design issues limited the robustness of effects; and (c) a more fully specified theory of matching is necessary to account for the complexity of the results.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: (1) To assess the benefits of matching alcohol dependent clients to three treatments, based upon a priori hypotheses involving 11 client attributes; (2) to discuss the implications of these findings and of matching hypotheses previously reported from Project MATCH. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: (1) Clients receiving outpatient therapy (N = 952; 72% male); (2) clients receiving aftercare therapy following inpatient or day hospital treatment (N = 774; 80% male). INTERVENTION: Clients were randomly assigned to one of three 12-week, manual-guided, individual treatments: Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy (CBT), Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) or Twelve-Step Facilitation Therapy (TSF). DESIGN: Two parallel but independent randomized clinical trials were conducted, one with outpatients, one with aftercare clients. Participants were monitored over 15 months including a 1-year post-treatment period. Individual differences in response to treatment were modeled as a latent growth process and evaluated for 17 contrasts specified a priori. Outcome measures were percentage of days abstinent and drinks per drinking day. FINDINGS: Two a priori contrasts demonstrated significant post-treatment attribute by treatment interactions: (1) outpatients high in anger and treated in MET had better post-treatment drinking than in CBT; (2) aftercare clients high in alcohol dependence had better post-treatment outcomes in TSF; low dependence clients did better in CBT. Other matching effects varied over time, while still other interactions were opposite that predicted. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Anger and dependence should be considered when assigning clients to these three treatments; (2) considered together with the results of the primary hypotheses, matching effects contrasting these psychotherapies are not robust. Possible explanations include: (a) among the client variables and treatments tested, matching may not be an important factor in determining client outcomes; (b) design issues limited the robustness of effects; and (c) a more fully specified theory of matching is necessary to account for the complexity of the results.
Authors: Ralitza Gueorguieva; Ran Wu; Dennis Donovan; Bruce J Rounsaville; David Couper; John H Krystal; Stephanie S O'Malley Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: J B McClure; H Derry; K R Riggs; E W Westbrook; J St John; S M Shortreed; A Bogart; L C An Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Marc T Swogger; Kenneth R Conner; Eric D Caine; Nicole Trabold; Melissa N Parkhurst; Laurel M Prothero; Stephen A Maisto Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2016-01-04
Authors: M Magill; Timothy R Apodaca; Justin Walthers; Jacques Gaume; Ayla Durst; Richard Longabaugh; Robert L Stout; Kathleen M Carroll Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2016-07-29