Integration: Too Much of a Bad Thing?

Rowdy Yates, John Burns, Louise McCabe
{"title":"Integration: Too Much of a Bad Thing?","authors":"Rowdy Yates, John Burns, Louise McCabe","doi":"10.1080/1556035X.2017.1320487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Integrated and/or multidisciplinary working has become a central guiding principle of addiction treatment throughout the Western world. Indeed, the notion has become virtually synonymous with good practice in intervening in a complex disorder like addiction. There has been surprisingly little analysis or evaluation of the efficacy of this approach. Rather, it is effectively taken for granted that integrated and/or multidisciplinary working is without question a “good thing.” But for complex interventions such as the therapeutic community, it is equally possible that these developments can threaten the underlying principles of the approach. This short literature review considers three areas of integrated working: integrating professional staff into therapeutic community teams; integrating new treatment approaches into existing therapeutic community frameworks; and the issue of therapeutic communities co-working with other treatment services with different philosophies and working practices. The work originated in an evaluative study of a network of Scottish addiction treatment services and the initial findings are that although there are some advantages to broadening the horizons of the therapeutic community movement, there is equally a danger of undermining some core principles.","PeriodicalId":88011,"journal":{"name":"Journal of groups in addiction & recovery","volume":"12 1","pages":"196 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1556035X.2017.1320487","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of groups in addiction & recovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1556035X.2017.1320487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT Integrated and/or multidisciplinary working has become a central guiding principle of addiction treatment throughout the Western world. Indeed, the notion has become virtually synonymous with good practice in intervening in a complex disorder like addiction. There has been surprisingly little analysis or evaluation of the efficacy of this approach. Rather, it is effectively taken for granted that integrated and/or multidisciplinary working is without question a “good thing.” But for complex interventions such as the therapeutic community, it is equally possible that these developments can threaten the underlying principles of the approach. This short literature review considers three areas of integrated working: integrating professional staff into therapeutic community teams; integrating new treatment approaches into existing therapeutic community frameworks; and the issue of therapeutic communities co-working with other treatment services with different philosophies and working practices. The work originated in an evaluative study of a network of Scottish addiction treatment services and the initial findings are that although there are some advantages to broadening the horizons of the therapeutic community movement, there is equally a danger of undermining some core principles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一体化:太多的坏事?
摘要综合和/或多学科工作已成为西方成瘾治疗的核心指导原则。事实上,这一概念实际上已经成为干预成瘾等复杂疾病的良好实践的同义词。令人惊讶的是,很少有人对这种方法的疗效进行分析或评估。相反,人们理所当然地认为,综合和/或多学科工作无疑是一件“好事”。但对于治疗社区等复杂干预措施来说,这些发展同样可能威胁到该方法的基本原则。这篇简短的文献综述考虑了综合工作的三个领域:将专业人员纳入治疗社区团队;将新的治疗方法纳入现有的治疗社区框架;以及治疗社区与具有不同哲学和工作实践的其他治疗服务机构合作的问题。这项工作源于对苏格兰成瘾治疗服务网络的一项评估研究,初步发现,尽管拓宽治疗社区运动的视野有一些好处,但同样存在破坏一些核心原则的危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Feasibility Study and Design of the ICU Infection Registry System for Patients Admitted to the Alzahra University Hospital in Isfahan: A Methodology Study. Is L-Glutamate Toxic to Neurons and Thereby Contributes to Neuronal Loss and Neurodegeneration? A Systematic Review. A Revised Multifamily Group Curriculum: The Need for Family Member Recovery from Addiction Rolling Psychodynamic Group for Cocaine Use Disorder: A Single-Group Study Using Multilevel Models The Window Opens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1