Alcohol Dependence
Conditions
Keywords
Informed choice, Alcohol use disorder, Addiction treatment
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to determine whether patient self-matching (as compared with treatment as usual by expert matching) improves quality of life, retention, and outcome for patients being treated for alcohol problems. There are at least two good reasons for offering patients a choice when the goal is a change in their behavior. The first is that patients are likely to know what treatment works best for them. Secondly, being allowed to choose between options may increase compliance in treatment. As a randomized controlled trial, this study will compare the efficacy of patient self-matching versus treatment-as-usual expert matching. The Self-Match Study is expected to increase knowledge on the importance of involving the alcohol dependent patient in choosing what treatment method is best for him/her instead of having experts to do that. The investigators expect to discover patient involvement as a way to improve compliance in treatment, hence preventing that patients drop out of treatment to early. If this hypothesis proves to be right, clinicians will have a viable strategy for matching treatment methods to patients, since the strategy does not demand further resources in the treatment system.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSelf Match
Video presentation of treatment option are shown to the patient whereafter the patient must choose between the five possible treatment options.
BEHAVIORALExpert Match
Referral as usual to one of five possible treatment options. The referral is based on baseline data from the patient and by the means of an algorithm, used in daily clinical praxis.
Sponsors
Kjeld Andersen
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Caregiver)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence. 2. Native Danish speaking. 3. Having no severe psychosis or cognitive impairment. 4. Accepting to participate in the study.
Exclusion criteria
\-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Reduced amount of drinking days measured by Time Line Follow Back. | 6 months after initiation of treatment. | The primary endpoint analysis will be a comparison of outcomes for patients assigned to the self-match group vs. expert-match group to determine whether self-matching yields more favorable outcome than expert matching, measured by the number of excessive drinking days. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance measured by proportion of patients who has completed treatment. | 6 months after treatment start | Data on patients who have completed treatment as planned will be gathered from treatment journal. |
| Quality of life measured by WHO's Quality of Life scale. | 6 months after treatment start. | Patients reporting increase or decrease in quality of life compared to baseline. |
| Personality traits, measured by NEO-FFI-3, influence on outcome. | 6 months after treatment start. | Comparison of personality traits with outcome measures. |
| Deviation in the chosen treatment in the Self-Match group in relation to the expected expert choice. | 6 months after treatment start. | The algorithm score used in expert-matching will be calculated for all patients. The chosen treatment for patients in The Self-Match Group will be compared to the algorithm score to measure convergence between Self-Match and Expert-Match. |
Countries
Denmark
Outcome results
None listed