Effectiveness of AT

• Effectiveness

  STRENGTH:

  Supporting research evidence:Antabuse

  Evidence: Neidernoffen and Staffen

  -compared to placebo

  -antabuse patients had longer periods of abstinence

  Explain: Antabuse to provide unpleasant stimulus effective at treating serious addiction

  EXT: AT more effective alongside a ‘talking’ therapy
• Effectiveness

  STRENGTH:

  Supporting research evidence:Rapid smoking

  Evidence:McRobbie

  -ppts in rapid smoking showed decrease in urge in 24 hrs and 2 weeks after

  -this was better than the group with anti-smoking video

  Explain: Rapid smoking is an effective unpleasant stimulus

  EXT: 4 weeks later

  -no difference in amount of smoking between the 2 groups

  -use of AT in this research may have been short term
• Effectiveness

  WEAKNESS:

  Issues with non-compliance

  Evidence: Unpleasant nature may mean clients stop engaging with the aversive stimulus

  Explain: Effectiveness may be questioned when it comes to the long term effectiveness of Antabuse
• Effectiveness

  WEAKNESS:

  Symptom substitution - only treats symptoms not cause

  Evidence: Negative association treats how the client feels towards focus of their addiction

  -doesn't treat underlying cause

  Explain: AT may appear to cure the person but the underlying problem may recur in the form of a different addiction or undesirable behaviour - symptom substitution
• Effectiveness-Conclusions

  • Effective in the short term not long term
  • Not as commonly used compared to other therapies
  • Addicts with substance addiction are unwell from that and this doesn't deter them
  • More effective if combined with other treatments such as talking