Therapeutic emails

BACKGROUND: In this paper, we show how counselors and psychologists can use emails for online management of substance abusers, including the anatomy and content of emails that clinicians should send substance abusers. Some investigators have attempted to determine if providing mental health services online is an efficacious delivery of treatment. The question of efficacy is an empirical issue that cannot be settled unless we are explicitly clear about the content and nature of online treatment. We believe that it is not the communications via internet that matters, but the content of these communications. The purpose of this paper is to provide the content of our online counseling services so others can duplicate the work and investigate its efficacy. RESULTS: We have managed nearly 300 clients online for recovery from substance abuse. Treatment included individual counseling (motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavior therapy, relapse prevention assignments), participation in an electronic support group and the development of a recovery team. Our findings of success with these interventions are reported elsewhere. Our experience has led to development of a protocol of care that is described more fully in this paper. This protocol is based on stages of change and relapse prevention theories and follows a Motivational Interviewing method of counseling. CONCLUSION: The use of electronic media in providing mental health treatment remains controversial due to concerns about confidentiality, security and legal considerations. More research is needed to validate and generalize the use of online treatment for mental health problems. If researchers have to build on each others work, it is paramount that we share our protocols of care, as we have done in this paper

Addressing alcohol use and problems in mandated college students: A randomized clinical trial using stepped care.

ObjectiveOver the past 2 decades, colleges and universities have seen a large increase in the number of students referred to the administration for alcohol policies violations. However, a substantial portion of mandated students may not require extensive treatment. Stepped care may maximize treatment efficiency and greatly reduce the demands on campus alcohol programs.MethodParticipants in the study (N = 598) were college students mandated to attend an alcohol program following a campus-based alcohol citation. All participants received Step 1: a 15-min brief advice session that included the provision of a booklet containing advice to reduce drinking. Participants were assessed 6 weeks after receiving the brief advice, and those who continued to exhibit risky alcohol use (n = 405) were randomized to Step 2, a 60- to 90-min brief motivational intervention (n = 211), or an assessment-only control (n = 194). Follow-up assessments were conducted 3, 6, and 9 months after Step 2.ResultsResults indicated that the participants who received a brief motivational intervention showed a significantly reduced number of alcohol-related problems compared to those who received assessment only, despite no significant group differences in alcohol use. In addition, low-risk drinkers (n = 102; who reported low alcohol use and related harms at 6-week follow-up and were not randomized to stepped care) showed a stable alcohol use pattern throughout the follow-up period, indicating they required no additional intervention.ConclusionStepped care is an efficient and cost-effective method to reduce harms associated with alcohol use by mandated students

Mandated college students’ response to sequentially administered alcohol interventions in a randomized clinical trial using stepped care.

OBJECTIVE: Students referred to school administration for alcohol policies violations currently receive a wide variety of interventions. This study examined predictors of response to two interventions delivered to mandated college students (N = 598) using a stepped care approach incorporating a peer-delivered 15-minute BA session (BA; Step 1) and a 60–90 minute brief motivational intervention delivered by trained interventionists (BMI; Step 2). METHOD: Analyses were completed in two stages. First, three types of variables (screening variables, alcohol-related cognitions, mandated student profile) were examined in a logistic regression model as putative predictors of lower-risk drinking (defined as 3 or fewer heavy episodic drinking [HED] episodes and/or 4 or fewer alcohol-related consequences in the past month) six weeks following the BA session. Second, we used generalized estimating equations to examine putative moderators of BMI effects on HED and peak blood alcohol content (pBAC) compared to assessment-only control (AO) over the 3, 6, and 9 month follow-ups. RESULTS: Participants reporting lower scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), more benefits to changing alcohol use, and those who fit the ‘Bad Incident’ profile at baseline were more likely to report lower risk drinking 6 weeks after the BA session. Moderation analyses revealed that ‘Bad Incident’ students who received the BMI reported more HED at 9-month follow up than those who received AO. CONCLUSION: Current alcohol use as well as personal reaction to the referral event may have clinical utility in identifying which mandated students benefit from treatments of varying content and intensity

Descriptive norms and expectancies as mediators of a brief motivational intervention for mandated college students receiving stepped care for alcohol use.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stepped care approaches for mandated college students provide individual Brief Motivational Interventions (BMI) only for individuals who do not respond to an initial, low-intensity level of treatment such as Brief Advice (BA). However, how BMIs facilitate change in this higher-risk group of mandated students remains unclear. Perceived descriptive norms and alcohol-related expectancies are the most commonly examined mediators of BMI efficacy, but have yet to be examined in the context of stepped care. METHODS: Participants were mandated college students (N = 598) participating in a stepped care trial in which mandated students first received BA. Those who reported continued risky drinking 6 weeks following a BA session were randomized to either a single-session BMI (N=163) or an Assessment-only comparison condition (AO; N = 165). BMI participants reduced alcohol-related problems at the 9 month follow up significantly more than AO participants. Multiple mediation analyses using bootstrapping techniques examined whether perceived descriptive norms and alcohol-related expectancies mediated the observed outcomes. RESULTS: Reductions in perceptions of average student drinking (B = -.24; CI = -.61 to -.04) and negative expectancies (B = -.13; CI = -.38 to -.01) mediated the BMI effects. Furthermore, perceived average student norms were reduced after the BMI to levels approximating those of students who had exhibited lower risk drinking following the BA session. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the utility of addressing perceived norms and expectancies in BMIs, especially for students who have not responded to less intensive prevention efforts

Does a Brief Motivational Intervention Reduce Frequency of Pregaming in Mandated Students?

BACKGROUND: Pregaming, also known as frontloading or predrinking, is a common but risky drinking behavior among college students. However, little is known about the way in which a brief motivational intervention (BMI) addressing general alcohol use and consequences may impact pregaming frequency. OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether mandated students reduced frequency of pregaming following a BMI when pregaming was spontaneously discussed and whether gender moderated these effects. METHODS: Participants (n = 269, 32% female) were mandated college students who had received a campus-based alcohol citation and continued to exhibit risky alcohol use six weeks after receiving a brief advice session. Participants were randomized to a brief motivational intervention (BMI, n = 145) or assessment only (AO, n = 124) and completed follow-up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months postintervention. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was used to examine both between-person (Level 2) effects (i.e., condition) and within-person (Level 1) effects (i.e., time) on pregaming frequency. Analyses examining discussions of pregaming within the BMI were conducted using a sub-sample of the BMI sessions which had been transcribed (n = 121). RESULTS: Participants in the BMI group did not significantly reduce the frequency of pregaming compared to those in the AO group, even when pregaming was explicitly discussed during the BMI. Moreover, the BMI was equally ineffective at reducing pregaming frequency for both males and females. CONCLUSION/IMPORTANCE: Pregaming frequency appears to be resistant to conventional intervention efforts, but recent research suggests several innovative strategies for addressing pregaming in the college student population

A quasi-randomized group trial of a brief alcohol intervention on risky single occasion drinking among secondary school students.

OBJECTIVES: To show the effectiveness of a brief group alcohol intervention. Aims of the intervention were to reduce the frequency of heavy drinking occasions, maximum number of drinks on an occasion and overall weekly consumption. METHODS: A cluster quasi-randomized control trial (intervention n = 338; control n = 330) among 16- to 18-year-old secondary school students in the Swiss Canton of Zürich. Groups homogeneous for heavy drinking occasions (5+/4+ drinks for men/women) consisted of those having medium risk (3-4) or high risk (5+) occasions in the past 30 days. Groups of 8-10 individuals received two 45-min sessions based on motivational interviewing techniques. RESULTS: Borderline significant beneficial effects (p < 0.10) on heavy drinking occasions and alcohol volume were found 6 months later for the medium-risk group only, but not for the high-risk group. None of the effects remained significant after Bonferroni corrections. CONCLUSIONS: Group intervention was ineffective for all at-risk users. The heaviest drinkers may need more intensive treatment. Alternative explanations were iatrogenic effects among the heaviest drinkers, assessment reactivity, or reduction of social desirability bias at follow-up through peer feedback