Search

When follow-up interviews are missed, researchers sometimes try to reconstruct the data that would have been obtained by asking clients to recall the missed interval when they are interviewed at a later point. Are such data reliable? The reliability of remote reconstruction was estimated by asking 57 participants in a clinical trial to recall their drinking for the 12-month follow-up interval when interviewed, on average, 33 weeks later. These reports were obtained after delays averaging 231 days. These reconstructed reports were compared with the same clients' self-reports obtained during the 12-month interview. Reconstructed data were found to be reasonably accurate estimates of clients' reports at the time of original interview on global alcohol use variables including percentage of drinking days and total volume of consumption. No systematic bias was found for over-reporting or under-reporting at the point of reconstruction. However, on some variables (e.g. total drinks consumed), clients on average reported more drinking at the reconstruction period than during the initial interview. Discrepancies between initial and reconstructed reports were found to be unrelated to the length of delay in the second interview or to client characteristics.

Predictors of relapse to drinking were examined in a clinical sample of 122 individuals seeking outpatient treatment for alcohol problems. Drinking status and a variety of predictor variables were measured every two months for one year following presentation for treatment. In addition to pretreatment characteristics, potential antecedents of relapse were assessed at each point within five domains: (1) the occurrence of negative life events; (2) cognitive appraisal variables including self-efficacy, alcohol expectancies, and motivation for change; (3) client coping resources; (4) craving experiences; and (5) affective/mood status. Although the occurrence of adverse life events did not predict 6-month relapse, all other domains singly accounted for significant variance in drinking outcomes. Proximal antecedents (from the prior 2-month interval) significantly and substantially improved predictive power over that achieved from pretreatment characteristics alone. When analyzed jointly, these predictors accounted for a majority of variance in 6-month relapse status. A prospective test supported Marlatt's developmental model of relapse, pointing to two client factors as optimally predictive of resumed drinking: lack of coping skills and belief in the disease model of alcoholism.

Relatively brief interventions have consistently been found to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption or achieving treatment referral of problem drinkers. To date, the literature includes at least a dozen randomized trials of brief referral or retention procedures, and 32 controlled studies of brief interventions targeting drinking behavior, enrolling over 6000 problem drinkers in both health care and treatment settings across 14 nations. These studies indicate that brief interventions are more effective than no counseling, and often as effective as more extensive treatment. The outcome literature is reviewed, and common motivational elements of effective brief interventions are described. There is encouraging evidence that the course of harmful alcohol use can be effectively altered by well-designed intervention strategies which are feasible within relatively brief-contact contexts such as primary health care settings and employee assistance programs. Implications for future research and practice are considered.