Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen

, Volume 89, Issue 3, pp 166–172

Het Minnesota Model

Een waardevolle aanvulling op de Nederlandse verslavingszorg?
  • Anke Snoek
  • Agnes van der Poel
  • Dike van de Mheen
Article
  • 2.5k Downloads

In dit artikel worden de resultaten gepresenteerd van een literatuurstudie naar het Minnesota Model en worden deze geplaatst in het licht van recente tendensen in de verslavingszorg: bereikbaarheid van de zorg, diversificering van doelgroepen en professionalisering van interventies. In dit artikel wordt gepleit voor een breed, gedifferentieerd, bewezen effectief aanbod in de verslavingszorg, omdat dit de mogelijkheid geeft om de matchingseffecten tussen cliënten en behandeling te optimaliseren. Hiervoor is diversiteit in behandeldoelen en -methoden nodig. Het in opkomst zijnde Minnesota Model lijkt een waardevolle aanvulling op het huidige aanbod van de Nederlandse verslavingszorg.

Trefwoorden:

Minnesota Model verslavingszorg literatuurstudie 

Abstract

The Minnesota Model: a useful addition to Dutch addiction care?

In this article we present the results of the literature study and put them in the light of recent developments in addiction care: accessibility of addiction treatment, diversification of target groups and professionalization of interventions. In this article it is advocated that there should be a broad, differentiated, evidence-based supply of addiction treatment, because this offers the opportunity to optimize the matching effects between clients and different treatments. Diversity in treatment goals and methods is, therefore, needed. The upcoming Minnesota Model can be seen a valuable expansion of the current supply of the Dutch addiction treatment system.

Keywords:

Minnesota Model addiction treatment literature study 

Literatuur

  1. 1.
    Ouwehand A, Kuijpers W, Wisselink D, Van Delden E. Kerncijfers verslavingszorg 2006. Landelijk Alcohol en Drugs Informatie Systeem. Houten: Stichting Informatie Voorziening Zorg, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waltman D. Key ingredients to effective addictions treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat 1995;12:429–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emmelkamp P, Vedel E. Alcohol- en drugsverslaving. Een gids voor effectief gebleken behandelingen. Amsterdam: Nieuwezijds, 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berglund M, Johnsson E, Thelander S. Treating alcohol and drug Abuse, an evidence-based review. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hester R, Miller W. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches. effective alternatives. Boston: Pearson Education, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with substance use disorders: alcohol, cocaine, opioids. Arlington: Am Psychiatric Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van den Brink W, Van Bueren L, Drenthen A et al. Multidisciplinaire richtlijn Stoornissen in het gebruik van alcohol (Concept). Utrecht: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie, CBO, Trimbos-instituut, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kownacki R, Shadish W. Does Alcoholics Anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments. Subst Use Misuse 1999;34:1897–1916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tonigan J, Toscova R, Miller W. Meta-analysis of the literature on Alcoholics Anonymous: Sample and study characteristics moderate findings. J Stud Alcohol 1996;57:65–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson D, McGovern J, DuPont R. The origins of the Minnesota model of addiction treatment - a first person account. J Addict Dis 1999;18:107–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corveleyn J, Van Limbergen S. Het Minnesota-model: een stappenbenadering van verslavingsproblematiek. Tijdschr Psychotherapie 2001;27:347–365.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leane M, Powell F. Courage to change, an evaluation of an Irish addiction programme. Cork: University college, The social policy unit, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindeman R. The efficacy of the twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous in the treatment of alcoholism. J Psychoactive Drugs 1993;25:337–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsh D, Hingson RW, Merrigan DM et al. A randomized clinical trial of treatment options for alcohol abusing workers. N Engl J Med 1991;325:775–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Autrique M, Vanderplasschen W, Pham T, Broekaert E, Sabbe B. Evidence-based werken in de verslavingszorg : een stand van zaken. Gent: Academia Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller WR, Wilbourne PL. Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction 2002;97:265–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol 1997;58:7–29.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: treatment main effects and matching effects on drinking during treatment. J Stud Alcohol 1998:59:631–639.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998;22:1300–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gageldonk A van, Ketelaar T, Laar M van. Hulp bij probleemgebruik van drugs. Wetenschappelijk bewijs voor werkzaamheid of effectiviteit van interventies in de verslavingszorg. Actualisering van de NDM achtergrondstudie uit 2004. Utrecht: Trimbos-instituut, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M. Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database System Rev 2006;3:1–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rietdijk E. Literatuurstudie. Effectiviteit van cognitieve gedragstherapie bij verslaving: een review van de empirische evidentie. In: Wildt W de (red). Achilles. Leefstijltraining 2. Alcohol, middelengebruik, gokken. Handleiding voor de trainer. Amsterdam: Boom, 2002. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galanter M. Network Therapy for alcohol and drug abuse. New York: Guilford Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moos R. Theory-based active ingredients of effective treatments for substance use disorders. Review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007;88:109–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Farrell T, Fals-Stewart W. Behavioral couples and family therapy for substance abusers. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2002;4:371–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fals-Stewart W, O’Farrell T, Birchler G. Behavioral couples therapy for substance abuse: Rationale, methods, and findings. Sci Pract Perspect 2004;2:30–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller WR, Meyers RJ, Tonigan JS. Engaging the unmotivated in treatment for alcohol problems: a comparison of three strategies for intervention through family members. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67:688–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McKay J. Effectiveness of continuing care interventions for substance abusers. Implications for the study of long-term treatment effects. Evaluation Rev 2001;25:211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verster A. Literatuurstudie. In: Wildt Wde (red). Nazorg na deeltijd en klinische behandeling. Utrecht: GGZ Nederland, Jellinek, 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Geelen K. Zelfhulpgroepen en 12 stappen-programma’s. Literatuurstudie. Utrecht: GGZ Nederland, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geelen K, Gottmer P, Schreurs H, Thijs A. Onbenutte mogelijkheden. Handleiding voor de aansluiting tussen verslavingszorg en zelfhulpgroepen. Utrecht: GGZ Nederland, Novadic-Kentron, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ouimette P, Moos R, Finney J. Influence of outpatient treatment and 12-step group involvement on one-year substance abuse treatment outcomes. J Stud Alcohol 1998;59:513–522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cook C. Addiction and spirituality. Addiction 2004;99:539–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tonigan J, Miller W, Schermer C. Atheists, agnostics and Alcoholics Anonymous. J Stud Alcohol 2002;63:534–541.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Winzelberg A, Humphreys K. Should patients’ religiosity influence clinicians’ referral to 12-step self-help groups? Evidence from a study of 3,018 male substance abuse patients. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67:790–794. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zemore S. A role for spiritual change in the benefits of 12-step involvement. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007;31:76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Geppert C, Bogenschutz M, Miller W. Development of a bibliography on religion, spirituailty and addictions. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007;26:435–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Borsjes M, Eerd I van, Sisselaar A, Verhaar B, Vink M. In de geest van … Cliënten over levensbeschouwing. Amsterdam: Amsterdams Patiënten- en Consumentenplatform, 2001.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tjaden B, Koeter M, Brink W van den, Vertommen H. De invloed van signatuur van de behandelinstelling op drop-out: een onderzoek bij drie typen verslavingszorginstellingen. Tijdschr Psych 2005;47:7–17.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schippers G, Roemer J. Redactioneel. Tijdschr Verslavingsvr (themanummer spiritualiteit) 2007;3(3):2–4.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goossensen A. Logica en liefde in de verslavingszorg. De behandelrelatie als basis voor zorgvernieuwing. Rotterdam: InHolland, 2008.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolff N. Randomised trials of socially complex interventions: promise or peril? J Health Serv Res Policy 2001;6:123–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Andréasson S, Parmander M, Allebeck P. A trial that failed, and the reasons why: comparing the Minnesota model with outpatient treatment and non-treatment for alcohol disorders. Scand J Soc Med 1990;18:221–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cook C. The Minnesota Model in het management of drug and alcohol dependency: miracle, method or myth? Part II. Evidence and Conclusions. Br J Addict 1988;83:735–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stinchfield R, Owen P. Hazelden’s model of treatment and its outcome. Addict Behaviors 1998;23:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chi FW et al. Twelve-Step affiliation and 3-year substance use outcomes among adolescents: social support and religious service attendance as potential mediators. Addiction 2009;104:927–939.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Winters K, Stinchfield R, Opland E, Weller C, Latimer W. The effectiveness of the Minnesota Model approach in the treatment of adolescent drug abusers Addiction 2000;95:601–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grønbæk M, Nielsen B. A randomized controlled trial of Minnesota day clinic treatment of alcoholics. Addiction 2007;102:381–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keso L, Salaspuro M. Inpatient treatment of employed alcoholics: A randomized clinical trial on Hazelden-type and traditional treatment. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1990;14:584–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sekera E, d’Epagnier C, Danis D. Treatment of chemically dependent patients: a program based on the Minnesota Model. Revue Médicale Suisse Romande 2005;1:1745–1749.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Christo Research Systems. Outcomes for Dutch patients at Castle Craig Hospital. Londen: Castle Craig Hospital, Christo Research Systems, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn, Stafleu van Loghum 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anke Snoek
    • 1
  • Agnes van der Poel
    • 1
  • Dike van de Mheen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IVOInstituut voor Onderzoek naar Leefwijzen en VerslavingRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthErasmus MC RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations