The Clinical Impact of the Brain Disease Model of Alcohol and Drug Addiction: Exploring the Attitudes of Community-Based AOD Clinicians in Australia
- 1.3k Downloads
Despite recent increasing support for the brain disease model (BDM) of alcohol and drug addiction, the extent to which the model may clinically impact addiction treatment and client behaviour remains unclear. This qualitative study explored the views of community-based clinicians in Australia and examined: (i) whether Australian community-based clinicians support the BDM of addiction; (ii) their attitudes on the impact the model may have on clinical treatment; and (iii) their views on how framing addiction as a brain disease may impact addicted clients’ behaviour. Six Australian community-based clinicians participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews that were analysed using thematic analysis. Whilst the BDM was not fully supported by this purposive sample of Australian community-based clinicians, there was acceptance that addiction neuroscience formed a key part of a wider addiction framework. Participants believed the BDM ignored key social, psychological and environmental factors important for successful treatment. The BDM was seen as potentially irrelevant for certain client types (e.g., where housing or financial concerns were of high priority), however the model was believed to integrate with particular therapies (e.g., mindfulness or cognitive-behaviour therapy). Participants believed that for clients viewing their addiction in terms of a brain disease, there were potential positive (increased insight and decreased stigma) and negative (increased stigma and sense of helplessness, reduced personal responsibility) impacts on client behaviour. Implications for addiction treatment practice and public health policy are discussed.
KeywordsAddiction Treatment Attitudes Qualitative research Neuroscience Brain disease
We would like to thank the participants for their time and support for this study. Furthermore, we thank Robyn Dwyer for her research support and Adrian Carter for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no COIs.
All study procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was accepted and deemed to meet the requirements of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)’ by the Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee (Application ID: HRE14-075; Approval Date: 13/05/2014).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
This study was supported in part by the Psychology Program at the Victoria University College of Arts, and the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP1094144), Addiction, Moral identity, and Moral Agency. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2001. Scientific conference focuses on ecstasy (MDMA): International experts meet to discuss the latest research and emerging trends [Press release]. http://archives.drugabuse.gov/newsroom/01/NR7-19.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2014.
- 5.American Society of Addiction Medicine. 2011. Public policy statement: definition of addiction. http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction. Accessed 6 Apr 2014.
- 6.Carter, A., W. Hall, B. Capps, and M. Daglish. 2009. Neurobiological research on addiction: Review of the scientific, public health and social policy implications for Australia. Sydney: Ministerial Council on Drugs. http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/Publishing.nsf/content/neu-res-add. Accessed 20 Mar 2014.Google Scholar
- 10.Fry, C.L., and D.Z. Buchman. 2011. Toward a lay descriptive account of identity in addiction neuroethics. In Addiction neuroethics: The ethics of addiction neuroscience research and treatment, ed. A. Carter, W. Hall, and J. Illes, 175–187. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 12.Illich, I. 1977. Limits to medicine. Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. Toronto: Pelican Books.Google Scholar
- 15.Netherland, J. 2011. We haven’t sliced open anyone’s brain yet: Neuroscience, embodiment and the governance of addiction. In Sociological reflections on the neurosciences (advances in medical sociology), ed. M. Pickersgill and I. Van Keulen, 153–177. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Foucault, M. 1973. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Tavistok.Google Scholar
- 23.Dingel, M.J., K. Karkazis, and B.A. Koenig. 2011. Framing nicotine addiction as a ‘disease of the brain’: social and ethical consequences. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 92: 1363–1388.Google Scholar
- 29.Satel, S.L. 1999. The fallacies of no-fault addiction. The Public Interest 134: 52.Google Scholar
- 30.Connolly, K. 2008. Victorian AOD Sector; qualification review report. Melbourne: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre. http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/8612/6741/5986/ENNP7%20Connolly%202008.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2014.Google Scholar
- 31.National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction. 2014. AOD specialist workers. http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/workforce/who-are-the-aod-workforce/aod-specialist-workers/. Accessed 1 Mar 2014.
- 34.Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 35.Farmer, R.L. 2009. Neuroscience and social work practice: The missing link. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 38.Straussner, S.A., R.T. Spence, and D.M. Dinitto. 2013. Neurobiology of addictions: Implications for clinical practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 44.Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 47.Department of Health and Ageing. 2011. National Drug Strategy 2010–2015: A framework for action on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/DB4076D49F13309FCA257854007BAF30/$File/nds2015.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2014.
- 48.World Health Organisation. 2009. Global health risks. Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2014.