Foetal (Fetal) Alcohol Syndrome Interview

Motivation for Addiction

Smoking is far more than just a physical dependancy. For those looking to quit it is just as much psychological!

Motivation is a key factor in quitting. No motivation, no reason to quit, the less likely a person is to quit!

A new motivational approach by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was published recently and involved using Text messaging to mobile phones to provide the extra motivation. The study examined the long-term effects of specially-designed motivational text messages.

The motivated group received five text messages a day for the first five weeks and then three per week for the next 26 weeks with a personalised system which also allowed people to receive instant messages at times of need by texting the word 'crave' or 'Lapse'.

Examples of the messages include:
•"This is it! -- QUIT DAY, throw away all your fags. TODAY is the start of being QUIT forever, you can do it!"
•"Cravings last less than 5 minutes on average. To help distract yourself, try sipping a drink slowly until the craving is over."

The results showed that continuous abstinence at six months was significantly increased in the motivated group with a 10.7% success rate compared to 4.9% success rate in the control group.

Not only are motivational Text messages a convenient way for smokers to receive support to quit, the extra motivation they received clearly made the difference between deciding to quit or not. The psychological side of the addiction is clearly strong and the ability to motivate the participants in the study helped them fight their cravings.

Motivational techniques have been found to work with a number of different addictions, or other psychological illnesses. They are many times when they only thing holding a client back is their own lack of motivation. If you feel your clients need to be better motivated then look into SDS's 'Motivational Interviewing' course and start motivating your clients today!

Motivational Interviewing and Beyond"

Dopamine and Individual Styles of Response

Contrary to popular belief, researchers have found that the differences in individuals' styles of response to environmental cues can influence chemical reward patterns in the brain. This has a great impact for future treatment and prevention of a number of compulsive behaviours.

The age old question: to what extent is the dopamine released by the rat's brain related to the lever's ability to accurately predict the food. They concluded that it depends on your style!

An example the researchers used: "Some people will see a sign for an ice cream shop and for them it's simply that, an indicator that ice cream is available nearby. But other people will have a stronger reaction to the sign -- the tantalizing association between the sign and ice cream is so powerful, they can already taste the treat and often hurry to buy some."

Similar reactions could be said to occur when people are addicted to harmful substances, not just food.

Using a technique called 'fast-scan cyclic voltammetry,' researchers measured the dopamine responses in the rats' brains - Analysis showed that the rats that were fixated on the environmental cue (the lever) got a jolt of happiness just from the lever, while the other rats did not. This desire for the lever continued even after the food reward was removed - showing how the environmental cue was enough for some rats to be rewarded, but not for others.

So it seems that although maybe we all seem the same on the outside, inside we could all have vastly different chemical processes occuring, based upon our reaction to the world around us..

Journal Article

Alcohol: More harmful than Heroin or Cocaine?

Alcohol, although one of the only legal 'recreational drugs' available to the public, has been seen in a new light recently with the publishing of a paper by Professor David Nutt.

A new system that ranks drugs on the basis of harm caused to both the user and others has placed alcohol as the most harmful drug - this is above even heroin and crack!

Professor Nutt attempted this assessment in 2007, which provoked major interest and public debate, although it raised concerns about the choice of the nine criteria and the absence of any differential weighting of them.

Drugs were scored with points out of 100, with 100 assigned to the most harmful drug on a specific criterion. Zero indicated no harm. Explaining their model, the authors say: "In scaling of the drugs, care is needed to ensure that each successive point on the scale represents equal increments of harm. Thus, if a drug is scored at 50, then it should be half as harmful as the drug that scored 100."

The nine categories in harm to self are:

- Drug-specific mortality
- Drug-related mortality
- Drug-specific damage
- Drug-related damage
- Dependence
- Drug-specific impairment of mental function
- Drug-related impairment of mental functioning
- Loss of tangibles
- Loss of relationships
- Injury.

The harm to others categories are:

- Crime
- Environmental damage
- Family conflict
- International damage
- Economic cost
- Decline in community cohesion.

Heroin, crack, and crystal meth were the most harmful drugs to the individual.

Alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others.

This system showed alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), then heroin (55) then crack (54.)

---

The implications this study could have on drugs policy is potentially huge. But one ahs to question, with such a large number of people drinking alcohol opposed to, say, taking heroin - has this made a difference to their results? Surely there are more people that enjoy alcohol with relatively little harm than those taking heroin or cocain?

However accurate/valid the study, it cannot be denied that it has and will cause much controversy. It will be interesting to see if future studies find similar results.

What are your opinions?
Is alcohol more harmful than heroin or cocaine?

Link to Article
Link to Paper

Can problem drinkers drink at a 'normal' level again?

Problem drinkers may reduce the amount of alcohol they consume over a period of years but not to the level of the average adult, according to a new study!

Using a telephone screening program, researchers identified 672 problem and dependent drinkers who had not been in an alcohol treatment program for at least 12 months. Eleven years later, men in the study had reduced their average number of drinks per month by 51%, and women had reduced their average number of drinks by 57%

However, even after this reduction, male problem drinkers still consumed 160% and female problem drinkers 223% more alcohol than the average adult. This suggests that problem drinkers and heavy drinkers may never lower their consumption to the level of the general population.

"Our people were functional, for the most part. They had addresses, a lot of them had insurance at baseline, and they're not at the 'bottom of the barrel,' which is interesting," said lead researcher Kevin L. Delucchi.

The researchers also examined which factors appeared to be linked with continued heavy drinking. Participants who received help from Alcoholics Anonymous or community social service agencies were likely to drink less. However, those who had heavy-drinking friends in their social network, received general suggestions that they do something about their drinking, and went to a formal treatment program were actually likely to drink more.

---

An interesting study that highlight the power of substance addiction and how difficult it can be to beat. Being able to stem the consumption to under 50% of the previous usage and function well within society seems to me to be a success, we don't expect those addicted to be perfect, but at least they are not at the 'bottom of the barrel' - they can contribute to society and perform within it. Whether or not they could ultimately choose to completely give up on alcohol is another question, and perhaps with support they could, but as long as they are functioning is it really a problem?

Or is alcoholism only a problem when it starts affecting other people?

Link to Article

Genes and their affect on Alcohol response

"The study compared the brain's response to long-term alcohol drinking in two genetic variants of mice. One strain lacked the gene for a dopamine receptor, which produces feelings of pleasure and reward. The other strain was genetically normal.

In the dopamine-receptor-deficient mice, long-term alcohol drinking resulted in significant biochemical changes in areas of the brain well know to be involved in alcoholism and addiction."

These findings may help explain how someone's genetic profile can interact with the environment to produce these changes only in some individuals, but not in others with a less vulnerable genetic profile. The work supports the idea that genetic screening could provide individuals with valuable information relevant to understanding risks when deciding whether or not to consume alcohol."

Further research on the interaction between genetic and the environment will increase the understanding of addiction. This information will be imperative to the public and will help people make more informed decisions about their behaviors"

---

Although this does highlight a genetic link between addictive behaviour and alcohol, it does make me wonder how much we are controlled by our genes, and whether or not our free will can be compromised by our genetic makeup. Perhaps a gene would not make addiction unavoidable, but it would increase a propensity towards it. Should a person, genetically designed to become addicted to alcohol for go alcohol entirely, or is it about how we choose to behave with this propensity in mind?

Link to article

Gambling Addiction is not limited to a single 'type' of person

Out of four types of compulsive gamblers identified by researchers at the University Hospital of Bellvitge (IDIBELL) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)shows signs of a significant pathology.

The study shows it is possible to distinguish four groups of pathological gamblers based on their personality traits and associated psychopathology.

Type I, which could be called 'disorganised and emotionally unstable', is characterised by schizotypal personality traits, high degrees of impulsiveness, alcohol and substance abuse, psychopathological alterations and early onset age.

Type II, which is a schizoid type, exhibits high levels of harm avoidance, social distancing, and alcohol abuse.

Type III is reward-sensitive, and is characterised by high levels of sensation-seeking and impulsiveness, although without any psychopathological alterations.

Type IV is a high functioning, globally-adapted personality type, without any disorders relating to substance abuse, and no associated psychopathological alterations.

Types I and II are pathological gamblers who exhibit problems in controlling their responses, "but only type II shows signs of a significant concurrent psychopathology," with high levels of impulsiveness and sensation-seeking.

---

An interesting look into behavioural addiction and how there seems to be no one reason or type of person that can become addicted to gambling. Would a similar thing be found for other addictions, either substance or behavioural?

Link to Article

The Mechanism that links Obesity and Addiction

When an animal finds food in the wild, it is a rewarding stimulus for the animal and is recognized by the brain by the release of dopamine.

Illicit substances such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines also cause the release of dopamine and therefore make people feel rewarded when they take drugs. The release of dopamine also occurs in tasty and highly-caloric foods. For this reason it's clear that dopamine has a role in addiction and the development of obesity.

Professor Bill Colmers set out to find if dopamine may have an effect on the memory-forming brain cells in the dentate gyrus. 'Conditioned Place Preference' is the name given to the behaviour when an animal knows it can expect rewarding stimuli, like a treat, in a certain location. This forms spatial memories in the dentate gyrus.

They found that when dopamine was added, it increased the excitability in part of the brain cell called the dendrites. A chemical secreted by the brain, Neuropeptide Y, had the opposite effect making the cells less excitable.

"You can find the fridge and you know there's good stuff in there, so you can find it in your sleep, and people do," said Colmers. "So there's this whole reward aspect to place that we've been able to unravel."

---

So if location and 'reward' can be linked, then avoiding places where we usually have a 'treat' (e.g. not going to the employee lounge on our breaks!) may help reduce those cravings for high-calorie foods. Similar findings have already been talked about in regards to drug use, (e.g. smokers not sitting outside can help curb the need to smoke) but with this finding used to explain eating behaviour and obesity, it shows how obesity and drugs addiction are not worlds apart.

Link to Article

The link between popularity, friends and drug consumption

"Our study highlights a correlation between popularity and consumption," says Jean-Sébastien Fallu, lead researcher and professor at the Université de Montréal's School of Psychoeducation. "The teenagers we studied were well-accepted, very sensitive to social codes, and understood the compromises that it takes to be popular."

The findings showed an increase in consumption, as the child got older regardless of their popularity level. However, the more popular a child and their friends were, the greater this consumption was.

"Teenagers don't consume to belong to the group or to increase their popularity level, they do it to remain well-liked," says Fallu. "It's more about keeping their status than increasing it."

Teenagers who aren't considered popular are more inclined to develop violent behaviors than consume alcohol or drugs.

---

Is drug taking cool? Maybe it was just the area I grew up in, but popularity in my school wasn't measured in the amount of drugs consumed! This study highlights a motivation for drug consumption that maybe hadn't been considered previously.

But what are your thoughts? Is social popularity the cause of drug consumption in teens? Or is the level of popularity the result of the drug consumption? Is level of social status enough motivation for teenagers to consume drugs? Is this type of peer pressure overt or just expected?

Why is drug taking considered 'cool' behaviour? Is it just because rules are being broken? Or is there another reason?

Let us know what you think.

Link to Article

Is changing your lifestyle fun?

"According to the authors, approximately one in five U.S. citizens over the age of 12 admits to binge drinking at least once per month, and nearly 10 million people suffer from clinical eating disorders. These epidemics make it critical to examine what can be done to encourage people to regulate consumption.

In one study, the researchers asked participants to hold pieces of candy between their fingers, and put it in their mouths and then take it out. "The goal of this task was to let people perform tasks with the candy but not be able to actually eat the candy," the authors explain.

Once the participants completed the initial tasks they moved on to taking unrelated surveys. But the candy was left on their desks without instruction as to whether they could eat it or not. The researchers measured how much candy the participants consumed and measured how much self-control the participants usually exerted.

"We found that participants who are usually high in self-control perceived the initial candy task - which involved touching, but not eating Skittles and M&Ms - as an opportunity to have fun (they were playing with candy)," - "Participants who are usually low in self-control, however, perceived the initial candy task as an obligation to work."

---

The study could also highlight people's motivation to change, those that see therapy and changing their lifestyle as work are likely to be less motivated to make the changes than those that view the changes to their lifestyle, and their therapy, as fun.

Wording of techniques or exercises could make the difference between an individual feeling like their therapy is all hard work and an individual feeling that therapy is fun!

Link to Article

Smoking-Mind Over Smoking-Matter: Surprising New Study Shows Cigarette Cravings Result from Habit, Not Addiction

A new study from Tel Aviv University shows why patches and nicotine gum are ineffective.

In the new study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Dr. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychology found that the intensity of cravings for cigarettes had more to do with the psychosocial element of smoking than with the physiological effects of nicotine as an addictive chemical.

"These findings might not be popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory, because they undermine the physiological role of nicotine and emphasize mind over matter when it comes to smoking," Dr. Dar says. He hopes this research will help clinicians and health authorities develop more successful smoking cessation programs than those utilizing expensive nicotine patches or gum.

Dr. Dar's studies conclude that nicotine is not addictive as physiological addictions are usually defined. While nicotine does have a physiological role in increasing cognitive abilities such as attention and memory, it's not an addictive substance like heroin, which creates true systemic and biologically-based withdrawal symptoms in the body of the user, he says.

Dr. Dar believes that people who smoke do so for short-term benefits like oral gratification, sensory pleasure and social camaraderie. Once the habit is established, people continue to smoke in response to cues and in situations that become associated with smoking. Dr. Dar believes that understanding smoking as a habit, not an addiction, will facilitate treatment. Smoking cessation techniques should emphasize the psychological and behavioral aspects of the habit and not the biological aspects, he suggests.

More information on this study can be found by clicking HERE