PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Biol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 26.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3693566
NIHMSID: NIHMS401788

Behavioral Therapies for Co-occurring Substance Use and Mood Disorders

Abstract

There has been marked progress in recent years in the development of effective behavioral therapies for substance use disorders and in the largely independent development of behavioral therapies for mood disorders. Until recently, however, there were few well-specified behavioral approaches that incorporated an integrated approach for individuals in whom these disorders co-occur. The emerging literature on the efficacy of several types of behavioral therapy for engaging individuals with co-occurring mood and substance use disorders in treatment, reducing substance use and affective symptoms, enhancing adherence, and preventing disengagement and relapse is reviewed, followed by discussion of the challenges likely to be met in integrating these behavioral approaches into clinical practice.

Keywords: Co-occurring disorders, substance use, behavioral therapies, review

As described in detail in other articles in this special issue, there is ample evidence that rates of comorbidity between substance use, depression, and bipolar disorders are elevated (Kessler et al 1997; Regier et al 1990), that these dual disorders place considerable stress on the service delivery system (Dickey et al 2002; Drake et al 2004; Rosen et al 2002), and that the risk of poor outcome is higher among individuals with both substance use and mood disorders compared with those that have a single disorder (Brady and Sonne 1995; Brown et al 1998; Feinman and Dunner 1996; McKay et al 2002; Rounsaville et al 1986, 1987; Thase et al 2001; Tohen et al 1990). What is also becoming clear is that a number of behavioral therapies can play a major role in several aspects of treatment for individuals with these complex disorders. This article will provide an overview of the roles that behavioral therapies (the term behavioral therapy is used here to refer to well-defined, manualized nonpharmacologic interventions rather than broader psychosocial or programmatic approaches) can play in the treatment of co-occurring substance use and mood disorders. Behavioral approaches that have been developed or adapted for these populations will be described, with a brief summary of findings from clinical trials evaluating their effectiveness, followed by a discussion of some of the challenges that will be faced as investigators and clinicians attempt to incorporate these empirically supported behavioral therapies into clinical practice.

Roles of Behavioral Therapies

Behavioral therapies may play a range of roles in the treatment of individuals with co-occurring mood and substance use disorders. First, behavioral therapies may be used to directly target and reduce ongoing substance use. Because substance use may play a role in the perpetuation or exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms, the principal rationale for this strategy is that reductions in substance use are likely to reduce symptom severity as well as facilitate accurate assessment and appropriate treatment of the comorbid affective disorder. Second, behavioral therapies can be used to directly address the affective disorder and promote symptom relief and may also aid the individual in coping more effectively with psychiatric symptoms. Third, behavioral therapies can be used to enhance treatment engagement and stabilization, that is, to retain patients in a supportive therapeutic program that provides a structure within which pharmacologic treatments and other key services can be productively initiated or maintained. Fourth, because noncompliance with pharmacotherapy is common in dual diagnosis populations and can undermine treatment outcome (Brady 2000; Kemp et al 1996; Maarbjerg et al 1988; Ziedonis and Trudeau 1997), behavioral therapies can play a key role in promoting and maintaining compliance with pharmacologic treatments directed at the psychiatric symptoms, the substance use disorder, or both. Fifth, behavioral therapies can be used to target other psychosocial problems that commonly occur among individuals with co-occurring disorders. Finally, behavioral therapies can be used to prevent relapse as well as disengagement from treatment and other essential supports. These roles are by no means mutually exclusive; rather, behavioral therapies would ideally serve multiple roles within a comprehensive approach to the treatment of individuals with these disorders based on the integrated treatment model advocated by Drake et al (1998, 2001), which involves the provision of interventions and services directed at both disorders by the same clinicians at the same time that cut across systems of care.

No single behavioral approach is likely to serve these roles equally well, however, as there is substantial heterogeneity among the goals and theoretical rationales underlying different behavioral approaches. Any single behavioral approach, or even a single treatment modality, is unlikely to effectively meet all needs of individuals with these complex sets of disorders at all stages of treatment. Hence, a range of diverse approaches has been developed and evaluated for their efficacy in addressing these issues. In general, these approaches represent adaptations of treatments originally developed for addressing either affective or substance use disorders to meet the needs of individuals in whom the disorders co-occur. Moreover, while there has been tremendous progress in recent years in identifying a range of empirically supported behavioral therapies for substance use disorders and for affective disorders, the number of well-controlled trials evaluating behavioral therapies developed specifically for co-occurring disorders remains quite sparse. The three most commonly evaluated types of behavioral therapy for individuals with co-occurring mood and substance use disorders are motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and contingency management approaches (Table 1).

Table 1
Potential Roles of Behavioral Therapies and Commonly Evaluated Approaches

Motivational Approaches

Motivational approaches are brief treatment approaches that are designed to produce rapid, internally motivated change in substance use and other problem behaviors. Motivational interviewing (MI), developed by Miller (2000) and Miller and Rollnick (1991, 2002), best represents these types of treatment approaches. Grounded in principles of motivational psychology and client-centered counseling, MI is closely related to the transtheoretical model (stages of change) (Prochaska et al 1992), in which individuals who are attempting to change problem behaviors are seen as moving through a reliable sequence of stages from precontemplation (associated with individuals who are not considering changing their behavior), to contemplation (recognition of the need to change and consideration of the costs and feasibility of behavior change), to determination (making the decision to take action and change), and then to action and maintenance of change. Motivation is seen as a critical variable for understanding how people move from one stage to another (DiClemente et al 1999).

As a treatment, MI is typically implemented as a brief approach, occurring over the course of one to four sessions, with early work focusing on building the patient’s motivation for change and subsequent work strengthening the patient’s commitment to change. However, the empathic, nonjudgmental interviewing style associated with MI can be used throughout treatment and even incorporated into other therapeutic approaches (Carroll et al 2004a). Key MI techniques associated with this style are summarized by the acronym OARS (Open questions, Affirming, Reflecting, and Summarizing) (Miller and Rollnick 2002).

The current level of empirical support for MI as an intervention across a wide range of substance use disorders and related behavioral domains is both extensive and strong (Bien et al 1993; Burke et al 2003; Dunn et al 2001; McCambridge and Strang 2004; Miller et al 1993; Miller and Wilbourne 2002; Wilk et al 1997). In recent years, several investigators have highlighted the potential applicability of the stages of change model (Carey et al 2002b; McHugo et al 1995) and MI to a range of dual diagnosis populations to address the critical issues of engagement and motivation (Barrowclough et al 2001; Carey 1996; Ziedonis and Trudeau 1997). For example, Mueser et al (2003) have adapted MI for use with patients with co-occurring substance use disorders and conceptualize MI as an important component of the engagement and persuasion stages of the integrated treatment model (Mueser 2004).

While well-controlled evaluations of MI adapted for populations with co-occurring disorders remain rare, the studies that have been completed to date suggest the promise of MI in enhancing treatment engagement as well as fostering greater awareness of the negative consequences of substance use. For example, Daley et al (1998) assigned 23 patients meeting criteria for cocaine dependence and major depression to either motivational therapy or treatment as usual upon discharge from an inpatient treatment unit. They reported that participants assigned to the motivational condition completed significantly more aftercare sessions (7 vs. 2) and were significantly less likely to be hospitalized in the year following discharge than those assigned to treatment as usual. Swanson et al (1999) randomized 121 psychiatric inpatients, most of whom had co-occurring substance use disorders, to either standard inpatient treatment or the same program with the addition of one 15-minute MI session early during hospitalization followed by one 1-hour MI session near discharge. Rates of patients who attended at least one subsequent aftercare appointment were significantly higher in the group assigned to MI (47% vs. 21%). Martino et al (2002) developed a manualized version of MI for use with patients with substance dependence and severe mental illness (either affective or schizophrenic disorders), which retained key MI skills and interventions but adapted them, first, to accommodate an integrated dual diagnosis approach and, second, to accommodate cognitive impairments and disordered thinking that often occurs in this population. Three key goals—abstinence from alcohol and psychoactive drugs, medication adherence, and program participation—are emphasized. In a pilot trial of this approach, 23 individuals with substance abuse/dependence and either affective or schizophrenic disorders who were entering a dual diagnosis partial hospitalization program were randomized to either a standard preadmission interview or a dual diagnosis MI (DDMI) interview of the same length (Martino et al 2000). Compared with participants who received the standard interview, those assigned to DDMI had improved program attendance patterns and lower substance abuse scores on several, but not all, outcome measures. Carey et al (2001, 2002a) evaluated the feasibility of addressing motivation among 30 outpatients with both substance dependence and either bipolar or schizophrenia via a four-session, individual, manual-guided MI approach adapted for this population. Although there was no comparison group with which to compare outcomes for MI in this pilot therapy development study (Rounsaville et al 2001), the majority of participants completed the intervention and reported feeling very satisfied with it. Moreover, participants reported significant increases in their readiness to change substance use as well as their perceptions of the negative consequences of substance use. Again, while most of these studies were small pilot investigations, taken together they suggest that MI adapted for individuals with co-occurring mood and substance use disorders can improve treatment engagement and, hence, is likely to also have a beneficial effect on outcome, in that retention in treatment is strongly associated with better outcome. Findings regarding the effectiveness of these approaches in reducing substance use and psychiatric problems are more equivocal, however.

Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches

Cognitive-behavioral approaches focus on teaching new strategies and skills for dealing with and reducing problem behaviors and cognitions through modeling, behavioral practice, and extra-session homework assignments. When applied to substance use, cognitive-behavioral therapy helps patients identify the patterns associated with the perpetuation of substance use (i.e., functional analysis) and implement new strategies for avoiding or more effectively coping with antecedents of substance use (i.e., relapse prevention skills training). Cognitive-behavioral therapy has been shown to be effective across a wide range of substance use disorders (Carroll 1996; Irvin et al 1999), including alcohol dependence (Miller and Wilbourne 2002; Morgenstern and Long-abaugh 2000), marihuana dependence (Marihuana Treatment Project Research Group 2004; Stephens et al 2000), and cocaine dependence (Carroll et al 1994, 1998, 2004b; McKay et al 1997; Rohsenow et al 2000). When applied to mood disorders, most frequently depression, CBT focuses on maladaptive cognitions and enhancing behavioral activation (Jacobson et al 1996). Cognitive-behavioral therapy also has strong empirical support for its efficacy in treating a range of affective disorders (DeRubeis and Crits-Christoph 1998; DeRubeis et al 1999; Dobson 1989; Fava et al 1998; Gonzalez-Pinto et al 2004; Hollon 2003; Paykel et al 1999; Sajatovic et al 2004). Given the strong level of empirical support for the efficacy of CBT when applied to either substance-dependent or mood-disordered patients, investigators have recently moved toward evaluating integrated CBT approaches for populations in which these disorders co-occur. These integrated CBT approaches emphasize recognition of the associations between substance use and recurrence or worsening of affective symptoms, relapse, or noncompliance (Jerrell and Ridgely 1995; Mueser 2004; Weiss et al 1999).

Again, because integrated CBT approaches targeting co-occurring disorders are a relatively new development, very few controlled trials of these approaches have been done. Weiss et al (1999) developed integrated group therapy (IGT), a 20-session, manualized group relapse prevention approach for individuals with bipolar disorder and substance dependence. The goals of the group include education regarding the relationship between the substance use and bipolar disorder, provision of mutual support through group interactions, abstinence from substance use, and adherence to prescribed medication regimens. Topics for each group are described in detail in the manual and include, for example, a session promoting greater awareness in patients that substance use can trigger affective symptoms and reduce medication adherence, a session exploring the effect of manic and depressive thinking on judgment, a session on skills training for recognizing and avoiding high-risk situations for substance use and relapse, and sessions emphasizing the use of self-help groups as an important support network. In a randomized comparison of IGT with an assessment-only condition for 45 individuals with both bipolar disorder and substance dependence, Weiss et al (2000) reported significantly improved substance abuse outcomes among those assigned to IGT, including percentage of months abstinent.

Several studies have evaluated cognitive-behavioral approaches for individuals with substance use and depressive disorders. Brown et al (1997) evaluated the effectiveness of adding an eight-session cognitive-behavioral component focusing on coping with depression (Brown and Lewinsohn 1984) versus relaxation training to a partial-day hospitalization program for 35 alcohol-dependent patients with elevated depressive symptoms. Results suggested significant and sustained reductions in depressive symptoms, as well as reductions in drinking quantity and frequency, among those assigned to cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression (CBT-D) compared with the control condition. Using data from a controlled trial of CBT and desipramine for 121 cocaine-dependent individuals, Carroll et al (1995) evaluated the subgroup of participants who also had significantly elevated levels of depression. Compared with supportive clinical management, CBT was associated with longer periods of abstinence and improved retention among this subgroup. Similar results were reported by Maude-Griffin et al (1998) based on data from a randomized clinical trial involving 128 cocaine-dependent individuals, where a CBT approach that incorporated mood control strategies was significantly more effective than 12-step oriented counseling among the subgroup of participants who also had a history of major depression.

Similar findings have emerged from studies evaluating CBT strategies to enhance rates of abstinence and successful quitting among depressed smokers. Hall et al (1994) compared the addition of a cognitive-behavioral intervention that emphasized strategies for mood management to reduce dysphoria-related smoking with standard treatment for 149 smokers. There were no main effects of treatment type for the full sample or for patients without a history of depressive illness; however, patients with a history of major depressive disorder had significantly higher abstinence rates when assigned to the cognitive-behavioral condition compared with standard treatment both at posttreatment (72% vs. 47%) and 1-year follow-up (34% vs. 18%). A more recent study did not replicate this effect, however (Hall et al 1996). Patten et al (1998) evaluated behavioral counseling with and without cognitive-behavioral mood management among 29 heavy smokers with histories of alcohol dependence and major depression and reported sustained, significant improvements in abstinence rates at posttreatment and 1-year follow-up (46% vs. 12%) for those assigned to CBT.

Thus, while there are still relatively few well-controlled clinical trials evaluating CBT approaches for individuals with mood and substance use disorders, those which have been done suggest that CBT is associated with a moderate, but durable, effect on substance use and/or depressive symptoms.

Contingency Management Approaches

Arguably, the most innovative and revolutionary development in the area of behavioral treatments for substance use disorders has been the findings regarding the robust efficacy of contingency management procedures in reducing substance use. These approaches, which are based on principles of behavioral pharmacology and operant conditioning, typically provide incentives or rewards to patients for demonstrating observable target behaviors, such as abstinence verified by drug-free urine specimens or other treatment goals. The landmark studies in this area were done by Budney and Higgins (1998), Higgins et al (1991), and Higgins and Silverman (1999), who developed a highly flexible contingency management procedure for cocaine-dependent individuals, where patients receive vouchers redeemable for goods and services contingent on cocaine-free urine specimens and where the value of the vouchers escalates with each successive drug-free specimen. In a series of well-controlled clinical trials, they demonstrated 1) high rates of acceptance, retention, and abstinence for patients assigned to this approach (e.g., 85% completing a 12-week course of treatment; 65% achieving 6 or more weeks of abstinence) relative to standard counseling approaches (Higgins et al 1991, 1993); 2) that rates of abstinence do not decline when less valuable incentives, such as lottery tickets, are substituted for the voucher system later in treatment (Higgins et al 1993); 3) that the value of the voucher system itself (as opposed to other program elements) produces good outcomes in comparisons of the behavioral system with and without the vouchers (Higgins et al 1994); and 4) some durability of treatment effects after cessation of the contingencies (Higgins et al 2000). Contingency management approaches have since been demonstrated to be effective in a wide range of substance-using populations (Griffith et al 2000; Higgins and Silverman 1999; Iguchi et al 1996; Jones et al 2001; Kirby et al 1998; Silverman et al 1998,2002). While these approaches have been criticized for having low generalizability to clinical settings due to the high cost of the vouchers (as much as $1200), in recent years highly effective and lower cost contingency management procedures have also been developed (Petry and Martin 2002; Petry et al 2000).

Because of the wide range of behaviors that respond to contingency management interventions, these approaches have also been adapted for populations with co-occurring substance use and mood disorders. For example, Milby et al (1996, 2000, 2003) have conducted two large clinical trials in which a program offering work therapy and housing, contingent on demonstrated abstinence from cocaine via submission of drug-free urine specimens, was significantly more effective than standard care in populations of homeless individuals with both cocaine dependence and nonpsychotic mental disorders. Similarly, Tracy et al (unpublished data) found that the provision of low cost prizes, contingent on verified abstinence from cocaine and alcohol, was associated with significant reductions in cocaine and alcohol use among 30 homeless individuals with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders, compared with an assessment only condition. Shaner et al (1997) reported data from a trial showing that monetary reinforcement of abstinence could be used to reduce cocaine use among homeless, treatment resistant, cocaine-dependent patients with schizophrenia. Roll et al (1998, 2004) recently demonstrated the feasibility of voucher-based contingent reinforcements in reducing cocaine abuse or cigarette smoking among individuals with schizophrenia. It is also noteworthy that a number of studies evaluating contingency management procedures in general populations of substance users have reported that subgroups of those with mood disorders respond as well as or better to contingency management procedures compared with those without comorbid mood disorders (Gonzalez et al 2003; McNamara et al 2001; Tidey et al 1998). This may be consistent with similar reports that dual-diagnosis patients do not invariably have poorer outcome than individuals with substance use disorders only in response to well-defined treatments (Charney et al 2001; Galanter et al 1996; Woody et al 1983).

Another potentially important but heretofore unexplored role for contingency management interventions among individuals with co-occurring disorders may be in facilitating treatment adherence, for example, via providing incentives for medication compliance. For example, voucher-based contingent reinforcement of medication compliance has been found to significantly enhance naltrexone compliance and outcome among naltrexone-maintained opioid addicts (Carroll et al 2001, 2002; Preston et al 1999). Rigsby et al (2000) have demonstrated that contingent reinforcement of adherence to complex antiretroviral therapy regimens can substantially enhance medication compliance among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive substance users. Thus, contingent reinforcement of compliance may be useful among individuals with co-occurring disorders who have difficulty adhering to their medication regimens, although to our knowledge, this application of contingency management has not yet been evaluated in clinical trials. Contingency management may also have utility in promoting program attendance, as suggested in an uncontrolled study by Helmus et al (2003) which evaluated the feasibility of contingent reinforcement of group attendance among 20 individuals enrolled in a community-based dual-diagnosis treatment program. A similar approach is reflected in programs that link abstinence and/or compliance with program recommendations to disbursement of entitlements (Ries and Dyck 1997; Rosen et al 2003). Taken together, these findings suggest greater empirical evaluation of contingency management approaches in co-occurring populations is warranted.

Conclusions and Challenges

While there are still comparatively few large-scale, randomized controlled trials of behavioral approaches developed for use with individuals with co-occurring mood and substance use disorders, the preliminary evidence suggests that several well-defined approaches which have been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of substance use disorders uncomplicated by mood disorders have generally shown feasibility and efficacy when adapted and applied to individuals with co-occurring mood disorders. Moreover, these data suggest that several of these approaches appear to be well suited for different roles and stages of treatment. For example, the available data suggest that motivational interviewing appears particularly useful in facilitating initial engagement and retention in these populations, as well as in facilitating attendance at aftercare programs. Cognitive-behavioral approaches appear to be moderately effective and durable in reducing substance use and, to some extent, depressive symptoms. Their efficacy in preventing relapse in this population has not yet been established. Contingency management approaches have robust effects in reducing substance use in both general populations and those with co-occurring disorders. It is not yet known whether they are effective in changing other target behaviors, although further investigations are warranted.

Several challenges, however, remain in this area. First, while the studies cited above are promising, large well-controlled trials of these approaches remain rare, and the field is in a very early stage of development. None of the studies cited above have been replicated in effectiveness studies in community-based settings for individuals with co-occurring disorders. Moreover, no studies have explored the extent to which active elements from this approach might be combined to enhance their effectiveness with this population, although this approach has shown promise in some drug-using populations, for example, via combining cognitive-behavioral and motivational interviewing approaches with marihuana users (Marihuana Treatment Project Research Group 2004) or combining contingency management for cocaine-dependent methadone maintained individuals (Rawson et al 2002). Second, because these approaches represent enhancements or additions to current practice, their higher cost may be a barrier to their implementation in clinical practice. Since few of these studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these enhancements (e.g., Schumacher et al 2002), policymakers and program directors may be unwilling to implement them in clinical practice unless their cost-effectiveness is demonstrated as well.

Furthermore, as highlighted in the article by McLellan and Meyers (2004), another crucial challenge facing the field is the effective service delivery system into which these behavioral approaches might be integrated. The substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment systems remain nonintegrated in many areas of the United States (Drake et al 2001, 2004; Institute of Medicine 1998), and competent staff trained to provide these interventions are comparatively rare (McLellan et al 2003). Intensive training is likely to be necessary to train the current workforce to effectively implement empirically supportive therapies for those with co-occurring disorders approaches (Miller and Mount 2001; Sholomskas et al, in press). Effective training programs which include certification and supervision may be crucial, given recent evidence of strong relationships between levels of fidelity to empirically supported approaches and outcomes in clinical practice (Henggeler et al 1997; McHugo et al 1999). Moreover, workforce turnover is high, particularly in substance abuse treatment settings, and is likely to represent a significant challenge in moving these approaches into the community (Horgan and Levine 1999). Thus, while the sharp recent increase in the development and identification of effective behavioral therapies for individuals with co-occurring disorders is promising and suggests a situation in which we might consider the glass half full, whether the glass itself will remain viable is an important question.

Acknowledgments

Support was provided by National Institute on Drug Abuse Grants R01-DA10679, K05-DA 00457, P50-DA09241, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs VISN 1 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC).

The conference was sponsored by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance through unrestricted educational grants provided by Abbott Laboratories; The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Cyberonics, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products; Merck & Co., Inc.; and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

Footnotes

Aspects of this work were presented at the conference, “The Impact of Substance Abuse on the Diagnosis, Course, and Treatment of Mood Disorders: A Call to Action,” November 19–20, 2003, in Washington, DC.

References

  • Barrowclough C, Haddock G, Tarrier N, Lewis SW, Moring J, O’rien R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing, cognitive behavior therapy and family intervention for patients with comorbid schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:1706–1713. [PubMed]
  • Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: A review. Addiction. 1993;88:315–335. [PubMed]
  • Brady KT. Difficulties in diagnosis and management of bipolar disorder: Three case presentations. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(suppl 13):32–37. [PubMed]
  • Brady KT, Sonne SC. The relationship between substance abuse and bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1995;56(suppl 3):19–24. [PubMed]
  • Brown RA, Evans DM, Miller IW, Burgess ES, Mueller TI. Cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression in alcoholism. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:715–726. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Brown RA, Lewinsohn PM. A psychoeducational approach to the treatment of depression: Comparison of group, individual, and minimal-contact procedures. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1984;52:774–783. [PubMed]
  • Brown RA, Monti PM, Myers MG, Martin RA, Rivinus T, Dubreuil ME, et al. Depression among cocaine abusers in treatment: Relation to cocaine and alcohol use and treatment outcome. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:220–225. [PubMed]
  • Budney AJ, Higgins ST. A Community Reinforcement Plus Vouchers Approach: Treating Cocaine Addiction. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1998.
  • Burke BL, Arkowitz H, Menchola M. The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:843–861. [PubMed]
  • Carey KB. Substance use reduction in the context of outpatient psychiatric treatment: A collaborative, motivational, harm reduction approach. Community Ment Health J. 1996;32:291–306. [PubMed]
  • Carey KB, Carey MP, Maisto SA, Purnine DM. The feasibility of enhancing psychiatric outpatients readiness to change their substance use. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 2002a;53:602–608. [PubMed]
  • Carey KB, Purnine DM, Maisto SA, Carey MP. Enhancing readiness to change substance abuse in persons with schizophrenia: A four session motivation based intervention. Behav Modif. 2001;25:331–384. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Carey KB, Purnine DM, Maisto SA, Carey MP. Correlates of stages of change for substance abuse among psychiatric outpatients. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002b;16:283–289. [PubMed]
  • Carroll KM. Relapse prevention as a psychosocial treatment approach: A review of controlled clinical trials. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996;4:46–54.
  • Carroll KM, Ball SA, Martino S. Cognitive, behavioral, and motivational therapies. In: Galanter M, Kleber HD, editors. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2004a. pp. 365–376.
  • Carroll KM, Ball SA, Nich C, O’Connor PG, Eagan D, Frankforter TL, et al. Targeting behavioral therapies to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: Efficacy of contingency management and significant other involvement. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:755–761. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Carroll KM, Fenton LR, Ball SA, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Shi J, et al. Efficacy of disulfiram and cognitive-behavioral therapy in cocaine-dependent outpatients: A randomized placebo controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004b;64:264–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Carroll KM, Nich C, Ball SA, McCance-Katz E, Rounsaville BJ. Treatment of cocaine and alcohol dependence with psychotherapy and disulfiram. Addiction. 1998;93:713–728. [PubMed]
  • Carroll KM, Nich C, Rounsaville BJ. Differential symptom reduction in depressed cocaine abusers treated with psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1995;183:251–259. [PubMed]
  • Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ, Gordon LT, Nich C, Jatlow PM, Bisighini RM, et al. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for ambulatory cocaine abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51:177–197. [PubMed]
  • Carroll KM, Sinha R, Nich C, Babuscio T, Rounsaville BJ. Contingency management to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: A randomized clinical trial of reinforcement magnitude. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;10:54–63. [PubMed]
  • Charney DS, Paraherakis AM, Gill KJ. Integrated treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62:672–**677. [PubMed]
  • Daley DC, Salloum IM, Zuckoff MA, Kirisci L, Thase ME. Increased treatment adherence among outpatients with depression and cocaine dependence: Results of a pilot study. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1611–1613. [PubMed]
  • DeRubeis RJ, Crits-Christoph P. Empirically supported individual and group psychological treatments for adult mental disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:37–52. [PubMed]
  • DeRubeis RJ, Gelfand LA, Tang TZ, Simons AD. Medications versus cognitive behavior therapy for severely depressed outpatients: Mega-analysis of four randomized comparisons. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:1007–1013. [PubMed]
  • Dickey B, Normand ST, Weiss RD, Drake RE, Azeni H. Medical morbidity, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 2002;53:861–867. [PubMed]
  • DiClemente CC, Bellino LE, Neavins TM. Motivation for change and alcoholism treatment. Alcohol Health Res World. 1999;23:86–92. [PubMed]
  • Dobson KS. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of cognitive therapy for depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;57:414–419. [PubMed]
  • Drake RE, Essock SM, Shaner A, Carey KB, Minkoff K, Kola L, et al. Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 2001;52:469–476. [PubMed]
  • Drake RE, Mercer-McFadden C, Mueser KT, McHugo GJ, Bond GR. Review of integrated mental heal and substance abuse treatment for patients with dual disorders. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24:589–608. [PubMed]
  • Drake RE, Morse G, Brunette MF, Torrey WC. Evolving U.S. service model for patients with co-occuring severe mental illness and substance use disorder. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2004;16:36–40.
  • Dunn C, Deroo I, Rivara FP. The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains:A systematic review. Addiction. 2001;96:1725–1742. [PubMed]
  • Fava GA, Rafanelli C, Grandi S, Conti S, Belluardo P. Prevention of recurrent depression with cognitive behavioral therapy: Preliminary findings. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55:816–820. [PubMed]
  • Feinman JA, Dunner DL. The effect of alcohol and substance abuse on the course of bipolar affective disorder. J Affect Disord. 1996;37:43–49. [PubMed]
  • Galanter M, Egelko S, Edwards H, Katz S. Can cocaine addicts with severe mental illness be treated along with singly diagnosed addicts? Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1996;22:497–507. [PubMed]
  • Gonzalez G, Feingold A, Oliveto A, Gonsai K, Kosten TA. Comorbid major depressive disorder as a prognostic factor in cocaine-abusing buprenorphine maintained patients treated with desipramine and contingency management. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2003;29:497–514. [PubMed]
  • Gonzalez-Pinto A, Gonzalez C, Enjuto S, Fernandez de Corres B, Lopez P, Palomo J, et al. Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral therapy in bipolar disorder: An update. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2004;109:83–90. [PubMed]
  • Griffith JD, Rowan-Szal GA, Roark RR, Simpson DD. Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: A meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;58:55–66. [PubMed]
  • Hall SM, Munoz RF, Reus VI. Cognitive-behavioral intervention increases abstinence rates for depressive history smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:141–146. [PubMed]
  • Hall SM, Munoz RF, Reus VI, Sees KL, Duncan C, Humfleet GL, et al. Mood management and nicotine gum in smoking treatment: A therapeutic contact and placebo-controlled study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64:1003–1009. [PubMed]
  • Helmus TC, Saules KK, Schoener EP, Roll JM. Reinforcement of counseling attendance and alcohol abstinence in a community based dual diagnosis treatment program: A feasibility study. Psychol Addict Behav. 2003;17:249–251. [PubMed]
  • Henggeler SW, Melton GB, Brondino MJ, Scherer DG, Hanley JH. Multisystemic therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:821–833. [PubMed]
  • Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Foerg FE, Donham R, Badger GJ. Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51:568–576. [PubMed]
  • Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Hughes JR. Achieving cocaine abstinence with a behavioral approach. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150:763–769. [PubMed]
  • Higgins ST, Delany DD, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Hughes JR, Foerg F, et al. A behavioral approach to achieving initial cocaine abstinence. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148:1218–1224. [PubMed]
  • Higgins ST, Silverman K. Motivating Behavior Change Among Illicit-Drug Abusers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999.
  • Higgins ST, Wong CJ, Badger GJ, Haug-Ogden DE, Dantona RL. Contingent reinforcement increases cocaine abstinence during outpatient treatment and one year follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:64–72. [PubMed]
  • Hollon SD. Does cognitive therapy have an enduring effect? Cognit Ther Res. 2003;27:71–75.
  • Horgan CM, Levine HJ. The substance abuse treatment system: What does it look like and whom does it serve? In: Lamb S, Greenlick MR, McCarty D, editors. Bridging the Gap between Practice and Research: Forging Partnerships with Community-Based Drug and Alcohol Treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. pp. 186–197.
  • Iguchi MY, Lamb RJ, Belding MA, Platt JJ, Husband SD, Morral AR. Contingent reinforcement of group participation versus abstinence in a methadone maintenance program. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996;4:1–7.
  • Institute of Medicine. Bridging the Gap Between Practice and Research: Forging Partnerships with Community-Based Drug and Alcohol Treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998.
  • Irvin JE, Bowers CA, Dunn ME, Wong MC. Efficacy of relapse prevention: A meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:563–570. [PubMed]
  • Jacobson NS, Dobson KS, Truax PA, Addis ME, Koerner K, Gollan JK, et al. A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64:295–304. [PubMed]
  • Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS. Comparative effectiveness of three approaches to serving people with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1995;183:566–576. [PubMed]
  • Jones HE, Haug NA, Silverman K, Stitzer ML, Svikis DS. The effectiveness of incentives in enhancing treatment attendance and drug abstinence in methadone maintained pregnant women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2001;61:297–306. [PubMed]
  • Kemp R, Hayward P, Applewhaite G, Everitt B, David A. Compliance therapy in psychotic patients: Randomized controlled trial. Br Med J. 1996;173:271–272.
  • Kessler RC, Crum RM, Warner LA, Nelson CB, Schulenberg J, Anthony JC. Lifetime co-occurence of DSM-III-R alcohol abuse and dependence with other psychiatric disorders in the National Comorbidity Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54:313–321. [PubMed]
  • Kirby KC, Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lamb RJ, Platt JJ. Schedule of voucher delivery influences initiation of cocaine abstinence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:761–767. [PubMed]
  • Maarbjerg L, Aagaard J, Vestergaard P. Adherence to lithium prophylaxis: I. Clinical predictors and patient’s reasons for nonadherence. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1988;21:121–125. [PubMed]
  • Marihuana Treatment Project Research Group. Brief treatments for cannabis dependence: Findings from a multisite trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:455–466. [PubMed]
  • Martino S, Carroll KM, Kostas D, Perkins J, Rounsaville BJ. Dual diagnosis motivational interviewing: A modification of motivational interviewing for substance abusing patients with psychotic disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2002;23:297–308. [PubMed]
  • Martino S, Carroll KM, O’Malley SS, Rounsaville BJ. Motivational interviewing with psychiatrically ill substance abusing patients. Am J Addict. 2000;9:88–91. [PubMed]
  • Maude-Griffin PM, Hohenstein JM, Humfleet GL, Reilly PM, Tusel DJ, Hall SM. Superior efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for crack cocaine abusers: Main and matching effects. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:832–837. [PubMed]
  • McCambridge J, Strang J. The efficacy of single-session motivational interviewing in reducing drug consumption and perceptions of drug-related risk and harm among young people: Results from a multi-site cluster randomized trial. Addiction. 2004;99:39–52. [PubMed]
  • McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Burton HL, Acherson TH. A scale for assessing the stage of substance abuse treatment in persons with severe mental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1995;183:762–767. [PubMed]
  • McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Teague GB, Xie H. Fidelity to assertive community treatment and client outcomes in the New Hampshire dual disorders study. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 1999;50:818–824. [PubMed]
  • McKay JR, Alterman AI, Cacciola JS, Rutherford MJ, O’Brien CP, Koppenhaver J. Group counseling versus individualized relapse prevention aftercare following intensive outpatient treatment for cocaine dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:778–788. [PubMed]
  • McKay JR, Pettinati HM, Morrison R, Feeley M, Mulvaney FD, Gallop R. Relation of depression diagnoses to 2-year outcomes in cocaine dependent patients in a randomized continuing care study. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16:225–235. [PubMed]
  • McLellan AT, Carise D, Kleber HD. Can the national addiction treatment infrastructure support the public’s demand for quality care? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2003;25:117–121. [PubMed]
  • McLellan AT, Meyers K. Contemporary addiction treatment: a review of systems problems for adults and adolescents. Biol Psychiatry. 2004;56:764–770. [PubMed]
  • McNamara C, Schumacher JE, Milby JB, Wallace D, Usdan S. Prevalence of nonpsychotic mental disorders does not affect treatment outcome in a homeless cocaine-dependent sample. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2001;27:91–106. [PubMed]
  • Milby JB, Schumacher JE, McNamara C, Wallace D, Usdan S, McGill T, et al. Initiating abstinence in cocaine abusing dually diagnosed homeless persons. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;60:55–67. [PubMed]
  • Milby JB, Schumacher JE, Raczynski JM, Caldwell E, Engle M, Michael M, et al. Sufficient conditions for effective treatment of substance abusing homeless persons. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;43:39–47. [PubMed]
  • Milby JB, Schumacher JE, Wallace D, Frison S, McNamara C, Usdan S, et al. Day treatment with contingency management for cocaine abuse in homeless persons: 12-month follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:619–621. [PubMed]
  • Miller WR. Rediscovering fire: Small interventions, large effects. Psychol Addict Behav. 2000;14:6–18. [PubMed]
  • Miller WR, Benefield RG, Tonigan JS. Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: A controlled comparison of two therapist styles. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993;61:455–461. [PubMed]
  • Miller WR, Mount KA. A small study of training in motivational interviewing: Does one workshop change clinician and client behavior? Behav Cogn Psychother. 2001;29:457–471.
  • Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior. New York: Guilford; 1991.
  • Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
  • Miller WR, Wilbourne PL. Mesa grande: A methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 2002;97:265–277. [PubMed]
  • Morgenstern J, Longabaugh R. Cognitive-behavioral treatment for alcohol dependence: A review of the evidence for its hypothesized mechanisms of action. Addiction. 2000;95:1475–1490. [PubMed]
  • Mueser KT. Clinical interventions for severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorder. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2004;16:26–35.
  • Mueser KT, Noordsy DL, Drake RE, Fox L. Integrated Treatment for Dual Disorders: A Guide to Effective Practice. New York: Guilford; 2003.
  • Patten CA, Martin JE, Myers MG, Calfas KJ, Williams CD. Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy for smokers with histories of alcohol dependence and depression. J Stud Alcohol. 1998;59:327–335. [PubMed]
  • Paykel ES, Scott J, Teasdale JD, Johnson AL, Garland A, Moore R, et al. Prevention of relapse in residual depression by cognitive therapy: A controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:829–835. [PubMed]
  • Petry NM, Martin B. Low-cost contingency management for treating cocaine- and opioid abusing methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:398–405. [PubMed]
  • Petry NM, Martin B, Cooney JL, Kranzler HR. Give them prizes and they will come: Contingency management treatment of alcohol dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:250–257. [PubMed]
  • Preston KL, Silverman K, Umbricht A, DeJesus A, Montoya ID, Schuster CR. Improvement in naltrexone treatment compliance with contingency management. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999;54:127–135. [PubMed]
  • Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992;47:1102–1114. [PubMed]
  • Rawson RA, Huber A, McCann MJ, Shoptaw S, Farabee D, Reiber C, et al. A comparison of contingency management and cognitive-behavioral approaches during methadone maintenance for cocaine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59:817–824. [PubMed]
  • Regier DA, Farmer ME, Rae DS, Locke BZ, Keith SJ, Judd LL, et al. Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse. Results from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study. JAMA. 1990;264:2511–2518. [PubMed]
  • Ries RK, Dyck DG. Representative payee practices of community mental health centers in Washington State. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 1997;48:811–814. [PubMed]
  • Rigsby MO, Rosen MI, Beauvais J, Cramer JA, Rainey PM, O’Malley SS, et al. Cue dose training with monetary reinforcement: Pilot study of an antiretroviral adherence intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:841–847. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM, Martin RA, Michalec E, Abrams DB. Brief coping skills treatment for cocaine abuse 12-month substance use outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:515–520. [PubMed]
  • Roll JM, Chermack ST, Chudzynski JE. Investigating the use of contingency management in the treatment of cocaine abuse among individuals with schizophrenia: A feasibility study. Psychiatry Res. 2004;125:61–64. [PubMed]
  • Roll JM, Higgins ST, Steingard S, McGinley M. Use of monetary reinforcement to reduce the cigarette smoking of persons with schizophrenia: A feasibility study. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998;6:157–161. [PubMed]
  • Rosen MI, Bailey M, Rosenheck RA. Principles of money management as a therapy for addiction. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 2003;54:171–173. [PubMed]
  • Rosen MI, Rosenheck RA, Shaner AL, Eckman TA, Gamache GR, Krebs CW. Substance abuse and the need for money management assistance among psychiatric inpatients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67:331–334. [PubMed]
  • Rounsaville BJ, Carroll KM, Onken LS. A stage model of behavioral therapies research: Getting started and moving on from Stage I. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2001;8:133–142.
  • Rounsaville BJ, Dolinsky ZS, Babor TF, Meyer RE. Psychopathology as a predictor of treatment outcome in alcoholics. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;44:505–513. [PubMed]
  • Rounsaville BJ, Kosten TR, Weissman MM, Kleber HD. Prognostic significance of psychopathology in treated opiate addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986;43:739–745. [PubMed]
  • Sajatovic M, Davies M, Hrouda DR. Enhancement of treatment adherence among patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 2004;55:264–269. [PubMed]
  • Schumacher JE, Mennemeyer ST, Milby JB, Wallace D, Nolan K. Costs and effectiveness of substance abuse treatments for homeless persons. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2002;5:33–42. [PubMed]
  • Shaner A, Roberts LJ, Eckman TA, Tucker DE, Tsuang JW, Wilkins J, et al. Monetary reinforcement of abstinence from cocaine among mentally ill patients with cocaine dependence. Psychiatr Serv (Chic) 1997;48:807–810. [PubMed]
  • Sholomskas D, Syracuse G, Rounsaville BJ, Carroll KM. We don’t train in vain: A randomized trial of three strategies for training clinicians in CBT. J Consult Clin Psychol. (in press). [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Silverman K, Svikis DS, Wong CJ, Hampton J, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE. A reinforcement-based therapeutic workplace for the treatment of drug abuse: Three year abstinence outcomes. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;10:228–240. [PubMed]
  • Silverman K, Wong CJ, Umbricht-Schneiter A, Montoya ID, Schuster CR, Preston KL. Broad beneficial effects of cocaine abstinence reinforcement among methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:811–824. [PubMed]
  • Stephens R, Roffman RA, Curtin L. Comparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:898–908. [PubMed]
  • Swanson AJ, Pantalon MV, Cohen KR. Motivational interviewing and treatment adherence among psychiatric and dually diagnosed patients. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1999;187:630–635. [PubMed]
  • Thase ME, Salloum IM, Cornelius JD. Comorbid alcoholism and depression: Treatment issues. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(suppl 20):32–41. [PubMed]
  • Tidey JW, Mehl-Madrona L, Higgins ST, Badger GJ. Psychiatric symptom severity in cocaine-dependent outpatients: Demographics, drug use characteristics and treatment outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998;50:9–17. [PubMed]
  • Tohen M, Waternaux C, Tsuang MT. Outcome in mania: A 4-year prospective follow-up of 75 patients using survival analyses. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1990;47:1106–1111. [PubMed]
  • Weiss RD, Griffin ML, Greenfield SF, Najavits LM, Wyner D, Soto JA, et al. Group therapy for patients with bipolar disorder and substance dependence: Results of a pilot study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61:361–367. [PubMed]
  • Weiss RD, Najavits LM, Greenfield SF. A relapse prevention group for patients with bipolar and substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1999;16:47–54. [PubMed]
  • Wilk AI, Jensen NM, Havighurst TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing brief interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:274–283. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Woody GE, Luborsky L, McLellan AT, O’Brien CP, Beck AT, Blaine JD, et al. Psychotherapy for opiate addicts: Does it help? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40:639–645. [PubMed]
  • Ziedonis DM, Trudeau K. Motivation to quit using substance among individuals with schizophrenia: Implications for a motivation-based treatment. Schizophr Bull. 1997;23:229–238. [PubMed]