Search results1 – 4 of 4
Dual Diagnosis Anonymous (DDA) is a peer-led programme developed in the USA, which aims to address mental and addictive disorders in an integrated manner. This study is…
Dual Diagnosis Anonymous (DDA) is a peer-led programme developed in the USA, which aims to address mental and addictive disorders in an integrated manner. This study is part of a mixed-methods evaluation of the first DDA pilot in the UK, and the purpose of this study is to explore the impact and mechanism of change of the programme through the perspective of DDA attendees, facilitators and the funding commissioners.
Six DDA members were interviewed three times over a period of 12 months, the facilitators were interviewed twice and the commissioner was interviewed once. The qualitative longitudinal data were analysed using a trajectory thematic analysis.
DDA attendance was perceived to have had a positive impact on five main areas: acceptance of self, of others and from others; social functioning; self-development; recovery progression; and feeling of hope. The possibility of addressing both mental health and addiction at the same time was a key factor in the recovery process. The facilitators observed that DDA had contributed to integrate members into employment and education, while the commissioner stressed the importance of joint commissioning and sustainability.
The longitudinal approach provided a unique insight into the recovery process of DDA members. Being able to address the mental health as well as the substance use problems was considered to be a fundamental strength of DDA in comparison to the single purpose peer-support fellowships.
The aim of this randomised intervention study was to test the use of two counselling styles in reducing alcohol consumption in offenders who were hazardous drinkers and…
The aim of this randomised intervention study was to test the use of two counselling styles in reducing alcohol consumption in offenders who were hazardous drinkers and who had been charged with alcohol‐related offences. An additional aim was to evaluate the research process itself before embarking on a larger trial. Participants were recruited from a police custody suite in the south east of England and randomised to receive either a motivational interviewing brief intervention (MIBI) or a standard brief intervention (BI). The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) was used to screen offenders for hazardous drinking. Participants were asked to complete a second AUDIT 12 weeks later. Two hundred offenders with alcohol‐related offences were screened over a 10‐month period. Of these, 182 were alcohol dependent and were therefore excluded from the study. Of the 18 who were eligible to enter the study, six refused to participate. Five were randomised to the MIBI group and seven into the BI group (BI). The mean age of the MIBI group was 25 (SD±3.86) years and the mean age of the BI group was 32.4 (SD±7.9). Audit scores were significantly lower at time 2 compared to time 1 for both intervention groups (t(11) = 17.60; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the different intervention groups.