{"title":"Exploring heterogeneity in recovery from substance use disorder following mindfulness-based relapse prevention: A latent profile analysis.","authors":"David I K Moniz-Lewis, Katie Witkiewitz","doi":"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Substance use disorder (SUD) recovery is heterogeneous. Yet, over the last 50 years, substance use treatment providers and researchers have often defined success as sustained abstinence from substance use. An often overlooked but equally valid pathway to recovery for persons with SUD is non-abstinent recovery. However, most of the literature on non-abstinent recovery exists for individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with few studies of non-abstinent recovery for other types of SUD. Literature exploring the mechanisms that lead to non-abstinent recovery is also lacking. As such, the current study aimed to examine recovery profiles for individuals (N = 454) recruited in two randomized clinical trials comparing mindfulness-based relapse prevention with cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention and/or treatment as usual.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Latent profile analysis empirically derived profiles of recovery following outpatient aftercare SUD treatment. Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between treatment assignment and recovery profile, including potential psychological mediators (e.g., mindfulness) and contextual moderators (e.g., annual household income).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyses supported four recovery profiles: (1) low-functioning frequent substance use; (2) low-functioning infrequent substance use; (3) high-functioning frequent substance use; (4) high-functioning infrequent substance use. There were no significant interaction effects of race or ethnicity by treatment type, or household income by treatment type, in predicting recovery profiles. Trait mindfulness, craving, and psychological flexibility failed to mediate the association between treatment assignment and recovery profile; however, there were statistically significant differences in trait mindfulness with individuals expected to be classified in the low-functioning infrequent substance use profile showing significantly lower levels of trait mindfulness compared to individuals in the two high-functioning profiles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest that recovery from SUD is heterogeneous, and profiles of recovery based on dimensions of substance use and functioning can be identified across a variety of SUD, including among people with co-occurring SUD. Additionally, trait mindfulness appears to be a differentiating factor across recovery profiles. Further research is needed to explore how psychological and social factors may moderate and influence both abstinent and non-abstinent forms of recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":73960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","volume":" ","pages":"209537"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.josat.2024.209537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Substance use disorder (SUD) recovery is heterogeneous. Yet, over the last 50 years, substance use treatment providers and researchers have often defined success as sustained abstinence from substance use. An often overlooked but equally valid pathway to recovery for persons with SUD is non-abstinent recovery. However, most of the literature on non-abstinent recovery exists for individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with few studies of non-abstinent recovery for other types of SUD. Literature exploring the mechanisms that lead to non-abstinent recovery is also lacking. As such, the current study aimed to examine recovery profiles for individuals (N = 454) recruited in two randomized clinical trials comparing mindfulness-based relapse prevention with cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention and/or treatment as usual.
Methods: Latent profile analysis empirically derived profiles of recovery following outpatient aftercare SUD treatment. Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between treatment assignment and recovery profile, including potential psychological mediators (e.g., mindfulness) and contextual moderators (e.g., annual household income).
Results: Analyses supported four recovery profiles: (1) low-functioning frequent substance use; (2) low-functioning infrequent substance use; (3) high-functioning frequent substance use; (4) high-functioning infrequent substance use. There were no significant interaction effects of race or ethnicity by treatment type, or household income by treatment type, in predicting recovery profiles. Trait mindfulness, craving, and psychological flexibility failed to mediate the association between treatment assignment and recovery profile; however, there were statistically significant differences in trait mindfulness with individuals expected to be classified in the low-functioning infrequent substance use profile showing significantly lower levels of trait mindfulness compared to individuals in the two high-functioning profiles.
Conclusions: Findings suggest that recovery from SUD is heterogeneous, and profiles of recovery based on dimensions of substance use and functioning can be identified across a variety of SUD, including among people with co-occurring SUD. Additionally, trait mindfulness appears to be a differentiating factor across recovery profiles. Further research is needed to explore how psychological and social factors may moderate and influence both abstinent and non-abstinent forms of recovery.
导言:药物使用障碍(SUD)的康复是多种多样的。然而,在过去的 50 年里,药物使用治疗提供者和研究人员通常将成功定义为持续戒断药物使用。对于 SUD 患者来说,一个经常被忽视但同样有效的康复途径是非禁欲康复。然而,大多数关于非禁欲康复的文献都是针对酒精使用障碍(AUD)患者的,对其他类型 SUD 的非禁欲康复研究很少。探讨导致非脱瘾康复的机制的文献也很缺乏。因此,本研究旨在研究在两项随机临床试验中招募的患者(N = 454)的康复特征,这两项试验比较了正念预防复发与认知行为预防复发和/或常规治疗:方法:通过潜特征分析,根据经验推导出门诊后护理 SUD 治疗后的康复特征。多项式逻辑回归研究了治疗分配与康复特征之间的关联,包括潜在的心理调解因素(如正念)和环境调节因素(如家庭年收入):分析支持四种康复特征:(1)低功能频繁使用药物;(2)低功能不频繁使用药物;(3)高功能频繁使用药物;(4)高功能不频繁使用药物。在预测康复情况时,治疗类型对种族或民族的交互影响以及治疗类型对家庭收入的交互影响均不明显。特质正念、渴求和心理灵活性未能调节治疗分配与康复情况之间的关系;然而,特质正念存在统计学意义上的显著差异,与两个高功能情况下的个人相比,预计被归类为低功能不经常使用药物情况下的个人的特质正念水平明显较低:研究结果表明,从药物依赖性精神疾病中恢复是多方面的,基于药物使用和功能层面的恢复特征可以在各种药物依赖性精神疾病中识别,包括在共患药物依赖性精神疾病的人群中识别。此外,特质正念似乎是区分不同康复特征的一个因素。还需要进一步的研究来探索心理和社会因素如何调节和影响戒断和非戒断形式的康复。