Family Behavioral Therapy (FBT) was developed by Nathan Azrin and Bradley Donohue over a period of over 20 years and is also based on CRA. The developers have designed substance use as a powerful stimulant, and the eight components described for this approach aim to (1) build capacity that is incompatible with drug use, (2) transform the environment to provide amplification of activities incompatible with drug use, and (3) a “level” system of graduated rewards to achieve the objectives related to the actions, that are incompatible with drug use. Like A-CRA, it has been mainly tested on an outpatient basis. It is designed to be done in up to 16 sessions lasting from 60 to 90 minutes over a period of 4 to 6 months. It is not surprising that, since it has the same ancestry as A-CRA, there are several similarities between the two approaches. Both are designed to increase positive interactions between the clinician and treatment participants, as well as between adolescents and others in their lives. Both are focused on youth and parents, as clinicians are trained to ask participants to provide input and guidance on treatment goals. They have similar components, including communication and vocational training. The most striking differences between the two approaches are the FBT expectation that another significant principal will attend each session, the level system based on emergency contracts, and the steps of the self-control component. And much more has been written about emergency contracts.
If you want to know more, we recommend taking a look at one or more of the following options: Davidge and Forman (1988) looked at eight case studies published between 1967 and 1985 that provided limited support for behavioral therapy with adolescent drug addicts. These studies were limited by small sample sizes, lack of control or comparison conditions, and in many cases only anecdotal reports of substance use behaviour. However, two of the cases used urinalysis to validate self-disclosure of substance use, which gave more force to the study claims. These cases used emergency contracts with the adolescent and parents, with a focus on school, work and relationships (Cook and Petersen, 1985; Fredericksen, Jenkins & Carr, 1976). In both cases, the adolescents significantly reduced their substance use or remained abstinent in follow-up treatment and follow-up for more than one year in one case and three years in the other. Cantrell, Cantrell, Huddleston and Wooldridge (1969) identified the steps in creating emergency contracts: (1) Interviewing the student`s parents or guardians. This allows you to work together to identify problematic behaviors to be addressed, identify contingencies that currently support those behaviors, determine the child`s current enhancers, and determine which reinforcement or punishment procedures to use. (2) Use this information to create a clear, complete and simple contract. The authors give examples of what these contracts might look like. However, there are a number of situations where there is sufficient evidence of use for evaluation purposes, such as. B monitoring the effects of an intervention program focused on abstinence or the use of “clean urine” drug testing in emergency drug abstinence contract programs.
However, drug biomarkers do not provide diagnostic data and should be used for this purpose in conjunction with self-assessment/interview or behavioral methods for data collection. .