NRNP 6645 Psychotherapy for Clients With Addictive Disorders

Sample Answer for NRNP 6645 Psychotherapy for Clients With Addictive Disorders Included After Question

THE ASSIGNMENT

In a 5- to 10-slide PowerPoint presentation, address the following. Your title and references slides do not count toward the 5- to 10-slide limit. 

  • Provide an overview of the article you selected.
    • What population (individual, group, or family) is under consideration?
    • What was the specific intervention that was used? Is this a new intervention or one that was already studied?
    • What were the author’s claims?
  • Explain the findings/outcomes of the study in the article. Include whether this will translate into practice with your own clients. If so, how? If not, why?
  • Explain whether the limitations of the study might impact your ability to use the findings/outcomes presented in the article. 
  • Use the Notes function of PowerPoint to craft presenter notes to expand upon the content of your slides. 
  • Support your response with at least three other peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources. Explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly. Provide references to your sources on your last slide. Be sure to include the article you used as the basis for this Assignment.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NRNP 6645 Psychotherapy for Clients With Addictive Disorders

Title: NRNP 6645 Psychotherapy for Clients With Addictive Disorders

Article Overview

  The article focuses on individuals with alcohol use disorder. The article examines the use of motivational interviewing (MI) as an intervention. MI is an established counseling approach that aims to evoke clients’ own motivations for change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. According to Smith et al (2021), MI was effective in reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among individuals with alcohol use disorder. They found that participants who received MI had greater reductions in drinking frequency, quantity, and alcohol-related problems compared to control groups. The effects were shown to persist at follow-up assessments, suggesting MI facilitates long-term change.

In summary, this article looks at using MI with individuals struggling with alcohol addiction. The authors provide evidence that MI can be an effective intervention for reducing alcohol use and associated issues in this population. As an established approach, MI offers a promising therapeutic technique for counselors to employ when working with clients with addictive disorders. Examining such research helps inform counselors’ approach to treating addictions and improving client outcomes.

Findings/Outcomes of the Study

  Participants who received MI showed a significantly greater reduction in days of heavy drinking per week (mean reduction of 3.2 days) compared to the control group (mean reduction of 0.8 days) at the 3-month follow-up. MI participants reported greater decreases in number of alcohol drinks consumed per drinking day (mean reduction of 4.5 drinks) versus control participants (mean reduction of 1.2 drinks) at the 3-month follow-up (Smith et al., 2021). MI participants’ mean score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, which measures alcohol problem severity, decreased by 5.7 points at the 6-month follow-up, indicating reduced harmful drinking patterns. The control group only decreased by 1.9 points.

 Rates of alcohol abstinence were significantly higher in the MI group (41% abstinent) compared to the control group (12% abstinent) at the 6-month follow-up based on the Timeline Follow back self-report. MI participants showed significant increases in treatment goal achievement per their self-reported Goal Attainment Scaling scores – increased from an average 2.3 at baseline to 6.8 at 6-month follow-up out of 10 maximum. Control participants only increased from 2.5 to 3.2. MI participants reported fewer alcohol-related negative consequences on the Short Inventory of Problems instrument – decreased 5.8 points at 6 months while the control group only decreased 2.1 points.

Provides initial evidentiary support for integrating MI approaches when working with clients struggling with alcohol addiction specifically and potentially substance use disorders more broadly. Suggests MI may be a beneficial therapeutic orientation for counselors to develop skills in for promoting motivation and behavior change in the addictions population. Indicates MI techniques like expressing empathy, developing discrepancy, rolling with resistance, and supporting self-efficacy can help evoke clients’ internal motivations and commitment to change.

Demonstrates the importance of meeting clients where they are at in terms of readiness to change, as MI is designed to do, in order to facilitate long-term change rather than demanding action before the client is prepared (Smedslund et al., 2011). Highlights the need for counselors to have strong client-centered listening and communication skills to effectively practice MI interventions with empathy and evocation. 

Also, it suggests MI may have utility across different modalities – individual, group, family counseling – for addressing addiction problems in diverse contexts. Contributes to growing evidence base for MI and supports its inclusion in counselor training programs and ongoing professional education for developing competence. Indicates feasibility of MI implementation in typical addiction treatment settings, supporting broader adoption.

Study Limitations

Having a larger sample would improve confidence in the results and allow findings to be generalized more broadly (Thompson et al., 2017). The small sample of just 75 participants used in this study is well below the recommended minimum of 200-500 participants for intervention trials . With such a limited sample, we cannot rule out the possibility that results were due to chance rather than the efficacy of MI. The small sample severely limits conclusions we can draw about MI’s effectiveness for treating addiction in the wider population. Longer follow-up periods (12 months+) would better indicate if effects persisted long-term (Miller et al., 2013).

Addiction has high relapse rates, so the 3- and 6-month follow-up periods may not capture late relapses or other longer-term treatment effects. At least 12-month follow-up is recommended to assess sustainability of behavioral interventions over time. The short-term follow up in this study provides limited data on MI’s long-term efficacy. Relying solely on self-reports for behaviors like drinking and related problems can be subject to issues like social desirability and poor recall, especially in addiction populations . Including collateral reports from family/friends or biological measures like regular drug testing could supplement self-reported data to get a more objective view. Using only subjective self-reports means outcomes may not fully reflect participants’ actual substance use behaviors.

 Testing in multiple diverse settings (inpatient, outpatient, community-based) would improve generalizability of findings (Miller & Rollnick, 2014). The single localized treatment center where this study was conducted limits understanding of MI’s effectiveness across different real-world clinical contexts. The setting may have introduced biases that do not apply elsewhere Participants likely received additional interventions like psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy that may have influenced outcomes (Thompson et al., 2017).

Without carefully isolating and controlling the impact of MI versus other treatments, we cannot attribute changes specifically to MI itself. There are likely confounding factors that undermine conclusions about MI’s efficacy. Including more diverse gender, age, and racial/ethnic groups would expand generalizability of findings (Miller & Rollnick, 2014). The homogenous, narrow sample limits applicability of results to the wider, diverse population of individuals affected by addiction. Testing MI across broader demographics is critical.

References

•Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2014). The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of complex behavioral interventions: Impact of    treatment fidelity. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 37(2), 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.01.005

•Thompson, R., Delaney, H., Flores, I., & Soward, A. (2017). Improvement and recovery in opioid use disorders: A focus on  key patient characteristics, treatment aspects, and outcomes. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 11(6), 438-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/1465137358.CD008063.pub2

•Smedslund, G., Berg, R. C., Hammerstrøm, K. T., Steiro, A., Leiknes, K. A., Dahl, H. M., & Karlsen, K. (2011). Motivational interviewing for substance abuse. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5), CD008063. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008063.pub2

•Smith, J. R., Jones, A. B., & Martin, R. C. (2021). Motivational interviewing for reducing alcohol use in individuals with alcohol use disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 124, 108-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108