About 26% of all U.S. treatment episodes end by individuals leaving the treatment program prior to treatment completion (SAMHSA, 2019b). Studies which have interviewed participants and staff of SUD treatment centers have cited ambivalence about abstinence as among the top reasons for premature treatment termination (Ball, Carroll, Canning-Ball, & Rounsaville, 2006; Palmer, Murphy, Piselli, & Ball, 2009; Wagner, Acier, & Dietlin, 2018). One study found that among those who did not complete an abstinence-based (12-Step) SUD treatment program, ongoing/relapse to substance use was the most frequently-endorsed reason for leaving treatment early abstinence violation effect (Laudet, Stanick, & Sands, 2009). A recent qualitative study found that concern about missing substances was significantly correlated with not completing treatment (Zemore, Ware, Gilbert, & Pinedo, 2021). Unfortunately, few quantitative, survey-based studies have included substance use during treatment as a potential reason for treatment noncompletion, representing a significant gap in this body of literature (for a review, see Brorson, Ajo Arnevik, Rand-Hendriksen, & Duckert, 2013). Additionally, no studies identified in this review compared reasons for not completing treatment between abstinence-focused and nonabstinence treatment.
Comparing Responses to a Recovery Lapse
Cognitive-behavioral theories also diverged from disease models in rejecting the notion of relapse as a dichotomous outcome. Rather than being viewed as a state or endpoint signaling treatment failure, relapse is considered a fluctuating process that begins prior to and extends beyond the return to the target behavior 8,24. From this standpoint, an initial return to the target behavior after a period of volitional abstinence (a lapse) is seen not as a dead end, but as a fork in the road. While a lapse might prompt a full-blown relapse, another possible outcome is that the problem behavior is corrected and the desired behavior re-instantiated–an event referred to as prolapse. A critical implication is that rather than signaling a failure in the behavior change process, lapses can be considered temporary setbacks that present opportunities for new learning to occur.
Covert Antecedents of High-Risk Situations
This concept was developed based on Marlatt’s cognitive behavioral model to prevent individuals from transforming a momentary lapse into a complete relapse by understanding the psychological mechanisms involved. These mechanisms typically include negative emotional states like shame, misinterpretation, and self-blame. People often perceive a lapse as revealing an inherent flaw or uncontrollable aspect of their condition, leading to cognitive dissonance, shame, hopelessness, and a sense of powerlessness. Mental health professionals work to counter these flawed thought patterns through cognitive therapy and promote healthier coping mechanisms by adjusting outcome expectations. Individuals with fewer years of addiction and lower severity SUDs generally have the highest likelihood of achieving moderate, low-consequence substance use after treatment (Öjehagen & Berglund, 1989; Witkiewitz, 2008).
Understanding the Abstinence Violation Effect
Laurel, as the Director of Corporate Compliance for USR, is responsible for ensuring that the facility follows all federal and state regulatory requirements, accreditation standards and industry best practices. Laurel has over twenty years’ experience in legal and regulatory affairs in both the public and private sectors. She attended the University of Kansas where she studied political science, and she is designated by the Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation (CLEAR) as a Certified National Investigator and Inspector (CNII).
- Indeed, this argument has been central to advocacy around harm reduction interventions for people who inject drugs, such as SSPs and safe injection facilities (Barry et al., 2019; Kulikowski & Linder, 2018).
- One of the key distinctions between CBT and RP in the field is that the term “CBT” is more often used to describe stand-alone primary treatments that are based on the cognitive-behavioral model, whereas RP is more often used to describe aftercare treatment.
- Recognizing the factors that contributed to the lapse, such as stressors or triggers, helps individuals to develop strategies and techniques to navigate similar challenges in the future.
- For example, despite being widely cited as a primary rationale for nonabstinence treatment, the extent to which offering nonabstinence options increases treatment utilization (or retention) is unknown.
- Often, the therapist provides the client with simple written instructions to refer to in the event of a lapse.
Navigating the Abstinence Violation Effect in Eating Disorders
Multiple theories of motivation for behavior change support the importance of self-selection of goals in SUD treatment (Sobell et al., 1992). For example, Bandura, who developed Social Cognitive Theory, posited that perceived choice is key to goal adherence, and that individuals may feel less motivation when goals are imposed by others (Bandura, 1986). Miller, whose seminal work on motivation and readiness for treatment led to multiple widely used measures of SUD treatment readiness and the development of Motivational Interviewing, also argued for the importance of goal choice in treatment (Miller, 1985). Drawing from Intrinsic Motivation Theory (Deci, 1975) Drug rehabilitation and the controlled drinking literature, Miller (1985) argued that clients benefit most when offered choices, both for drinking goals and intervention approaches.
- Relapse prevention initially evolved as a calculated response to the longer-term treatment failures of other therapies.
- The RP model proposed by Marlatt and Gordon suggests that both immediate determinants (e.g., high-risk situations, coping skills, outcome expectancies, and the abstinence violation effect) and covert antecedents (e.g., lifestyle factors and urges and cravings) can contribute to relapse.
- Rather, when people with SUD are surveyed about reasons they are not in treatment, not being ready to stop using substances is consistently the top reason cited, even among individuals who perceive a need for treatment (SAMHSA, 2018, 2019a).
Key 1: A Lapse Is Not a Relapse
It arises when a person starts to feel that when a lapse occurs, it is indicative of a moral failure, loss of hope for continued recovery, or proof that recovery is ultimately not possible. This is a common risk factor, but psychologists, rehabilitation professionals, and treatment centers work hard to combat it because it’s generally not constructive for the individual’s future success. Several studies over the past two decades have evaluated the reliability and predictive validity2 of the RP model as well as the efficacy of treatment techniques based on this model. One recent large-scale research effort assessing the RP model was the Relapse Replication and Extension Project (RREP), which was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Lowman et al. 1996). This collaborative research project evaluated the reliability of raters’ categorizations of high-risk situations using Marlatt’s taxonomy and assessed whether a prior situation could predict future lapse episodes. The Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE – think the abbreviation for avenue to help you remember it) is what happens when an individual deviates from his/her plan – and then continues to remain off that path due to frustration, shame, guilt, etc.