Aims

To support the free and open dissemination of research findings and information on alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. To encourage open access to peer-reviewed articles free for all to view.

For full versions of posted research articles readers are encouraged to email requests for "electronic reprints" (text file, PDF files, FAX copies) to the corresponding or lead author, who is highlighted in the posting.

___________________________________________

Thursday, February 8, 2007

A randomized controlled trial of Minnesota day clinic treatment of alcoholics

Volume 102 Issue 3 Page 381 - March 2007


RESEARCH REPORT
A randomized controlled trial of Minnesota day clinic treatment of alcoholics



Morten Grønbæk1
1Centre for Alcohol Research, National Institute of Public Health, Copenhagen, Denmark andMorten Grønbæk, Centre for Alcohol Research, National Institute of Public Health, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 2nd floor, DK-1399 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: mg@niph.dk &
Bent Nielsen 2 2Department of Psychiatry Odense, University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

1Centre for Alcohol Research, National Institute of Public Health, Copenhagen, Denmark and 2Department of Psychiatry Odense, University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Morten Grønbæk, Centre for Alcohol Research, National Institute of Public Health, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 2nd floor, DK-1399 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail:
mg@niph.dk

ABSTRACT

Aim To compare the Minnesota day clinic treatment with the traditional public psychosocial treatment.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Public out-patient alcohol clinic and privately funded Minnesota day clinic in Denmark.

Participants A total of 148 individuals with alcohol dependence were included in a 1-year clinical trial.

Measurements Self-reported drinking pattern and the seven composite scores from the addiction severity index (ASI).

Findings A total of 42 (57%) and 45 (61%) patients (P > 0.05) completed the Minnesota treatment and public treatment, respectively.

Throughout the whole 12-month follow-up period, 35% of the patients treated at the Minnesota day clinic were abstainers, while this was the case for 20% of the patients treated in the public out-patient alcohol clinic (P = 0.043).

During the last month before the end of the 1-year follow-up, 53% of the patients treated according to the Minnesota model were abstainers, while this was the case for 43% of the patients treated in the public out-patient alcohol clinic (P = 0.249).

There were insignificant differences in the seven ASI scores.

Conclusions Twelve months after onset of treatment, the Minnesota day clinic treatment does not differ in effect from the much cheaper 'standard' public treatment. However, patients in Minnesota treatment were total abstainers throughout a longer period.

at