• Welcome
• Steve & Insoo
• Conferences
  • 2007 Brugge
  • 2006 Krakow
  • 2004 Amsterdam
  • 2003 Berlin
  • 2002 Cardiff
• Research
  • Research Grant
  • SFBT Evaluation List
  • The Multi-Center Research
  • SFBT Research Definition
  • Articles Online
  • SFBT Research-links Info
  • SFBT Listservers
  • Files
    • Luc Isebart
    • Lonnen
    • Warner
    • shivo
    • Panayotoy
    • Morejon Beyebach
    • Tollington
  • Questionaires
  • Research Links
  • Article Search Engines
  • Journals on Psychotherapy
• About us
  • Membership
  • Board
• Links

RESULTS FOLLOW-UP STUDY 1999 TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR ALCOHOLICS
Download as pdf-file

Luc Isebaert, Bruges, Belgium

POPULATIONn=132Gender: M 89 (67.4%), F 43 (32.6)%Age: mean 46.2; stdev 10.3. Min:19; max: 74.MALT (Muenchner Alcohol Test) scores at admission:mean score 27.39; st dev 7.82. MALT score > 10: 129 pts(97.7%).Minimum MALT score: 4; maximum MALT score: 49
TREATMENT PROGRAMAll patients were hospitalised. Duration of hospitalisation (including detoxification): on average 24 days continuous hospitalisation and/or day clinic.The treatment program consists of minimum 5 days of detoxification, testing and interactive information about alcohol, followed by group treatment in two groups: one for those opting for abstinence, one for those opting for controlled drinking.Alcohol is not allowed during the phase of full-time hospitalisation; it is allowed (and discussed) during the day-clinic phase.Treatment is based on the Bruges Model, which is Solution Focused Therapy with a heavy emphasis on the patient recovering the freedom of choosing between drinking and not drinking.
METHODSTelephonic follow-up study 4 years after discharge.Informant: patient. Whenever possible, corroboration concerning drinking habits was obtained from partners.The following hypotheses were tested: 1. If the registered changes are due only to the effect of the therapy, the follow-up will show only general changes; there will be no influence of pre-treatment drinking habits, of gender, age, socioeconomic status, work status, general functioning, partner problems and family (dys)harmony.2. If the registered changes are due to personality or environmental factors, the following differences are to be expected:2.1. Better results with women than with men;2.2. Better results with married persons if these are men, not if they are women;2.3. Better results with gainfully employed persons than with the jobless or the pensioned;2.4. Better results with persons who function well, i.e. those who perform their daily activities without problems;2.5. Better results if there are no partner problems or family disharmony;2.6. Persons who succeed in drinking in a controlled way will have a better socioeconomic status and a more harmonious family life than those who practice abstinence;2.7. Alcohol-related mortality will be higher with women than with men.
RESULTS Successful: 100 ( 75.76% )Not drinking: 60 ( 45.45% )Drinking in a controlled way: 40 ( 30.30% )(Controlled drinking= daily 0-3 units/day, and/or occasionally more, but never more than 10 units/day)Drinking too much: 19 ( 14.39% )Died: 13 ( 9.85% )Of these:Still drinking excessively at time of death: 9 (6.82% )Not drinking at time of death: 2 (1.52% }Not known: 2 (1.52% }Cause of death: Suicide 5; hepatic cirrhosis 2; pancreatitis 1; traumatic (fall) 2; cancer 2; cardiac arrest 1.Hospitalized again after this treatment? Yes: 26.1% ; no: 73.9%To hypothesis 1:1. There is no statistically significant difference (s.s.d.) in success rate between persons with high or a low MALT score.2. Although more persons who originally opted for abstinence achieve good results than persons who originally opted for controlled drinking, the difference is not statistically significant ( chi(1)= 2.177)It is interesting to note that 26.66% of those who originally opted for controlled drinking, report at the follow-up that they have since changed their option towards abstinence.To the hypotheses 2: To 2.1.: There is no s.s.d. between men and women (chi(1)= 1.469)To 2.2.: There is no s.s.d. between married men and women (chi(1)= 0.069 for men, 0.494 for women)To 2.3.: No s.s.d. between gainfully occupied and not gainfully occupied persons (chi(1)= 1.084)To 2.4.: There is a s.s.d. with persons who function well have a higher success rate than those who do not function well (chi(1)= 5.314. p<0.05)To 2.5.: The relation between success rate and family harmony was investigated: no s.s.d. according to family (dis)harmony, neither for abstinent's nor for controlled drinkersSecondly, the relation between success rate and support from the partner during therapy was investigated: no s. s.d.To 2.6.: No s.s.d. according to socio-economic status, neither for abstinent's nor for controlled drinkers.To 2.7.: Among the 13 deceased patients, there is only 1 woman. The hypothesis is not confirmed.