Addiction is not a brain disease

Davies, John B.

doi:10.1080/16066359.2017.1321741

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Challenging the brain disease model, addiction researchers have asserted that while people cannot simply give up a mental or physical illness such as Alzheimer's or diabetes, they can and do decide to give up various addictive behaviors (Davies 2018). Further, Heim (2014) argues that the brain disease mode is one-dimensional; it fails to recognize other important social, psychological, cultural, political, legal, and environmental determinants; and it undermines the role of people's circumstances and individual choice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What does it mean to recover from a gambling disorder? Perspectives of gambling help service users

Pickering

Spoelma

Dawczyk

et al. 2019

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:There is no consensus on how to best define recovery in gambling disorder. This minimizes clinicians' abilities to apply optimal treatment goals and contributes to inconsistency in the use of outcome variables to evaluate interventions. Current understanding of recovery is largely based on professional opinion and theoretical models of gambling disorder. This study aimed to examine core features of recovery identified by service users with lived experiences.Methods: Thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data from 32 face-to-face interviews.Interviewees were at various stages of help-seeking for gambling problems mostly related to electronic gaming machines via self-exclusion and/or specialized gambling counseling. Results: Recovery was perceived by the participants as a continuous process that encompasses periods of improvement and decline. Several key themes of recovery emerged; participants highlighted the importance of developing insight into the psychological and environmental processes that contribute to their gambling problem. Insight helped participants feel empowered to successfully manage their gambling urges and behavior. Recovery extended to building a meaningful life beyond gambling, which involved engagement in alternative activities and fostering strong social relationships. It included stabilization of personal finances and achieving general psychological health and wellbeing. Conclusions: Findings challenge acute symptom-focused models of recovery by broadening the definitional boundaries to include sustained improvements across multiple psychosocial dimensions. Greater emphasis should be given to service user-defined elements of recovery in treatment and research. The long-term perspective of the recovery process has implications for extending standard follow-up assessment intervals in gambling treatment studies. 3

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What does it mean to recover from a gambling disorder? Perspectives of gambling help service users

Pickering

Spoelma

Dawczyk

et al. 2019

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2017, more than half of states with ACA plans did not adhere to coverage of SUD benefits (Vuolo et al 2019). Classifying SUDs as a brain disease is a controversial point, as while the brain disease model views the condition as purely pathologic, alternative models highlight the social and environmental factors that contribute (Davies 2018;Lewis 2018). Regardless of how we choose to model SUDs, it is imperative that they be given the same level of attention and care as is given to diseases, and that persisting barriers to insurance due to stigma be erased.…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing the narrative: a call to end stigmatizing terminology related to substance use disorders

Atayde

Hauc

Bessette

et al. 2021

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Following growing interest in the BDMA, critical concerns have been raised about its general validity and wider social effects. The model has been criticized for problems of causality (Kalant 2009;Lewis 2017;Davies 2018) and problems of definition (Kalant 2009;Buchman et al 2011); for disregarding the embeddedness of drinking and drug use in social, psychological, cultural, political, legal, and environmental contexts (Heim 2014;Davies 2018;Heather et al 2018); and for collapsing the social under the category of the "environment" (Campbell and Ettorre 2011). Aside from these issues, the claim that the BDMA would remove or reduce stigma among addicted individuals has also attracted a lot of discussion although so far has received little support (Buchman et al 2011;Kvaale, Haslam and Gottdiener 2013;Haslam and Kvaale 2015;Wiens and Walker 2015;Fraser et al 2017).…”

Section: The Brain Disease Model Of Addiction: Existing Research and Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘But I’m not a doctor’: pending trust in science among laypeople discussing the brain disease model of addiction

Bogren

2019

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: In recent decades, the notion of addiction as a brain disease has become influential among scientists, public institutions, and addiction treatment professionals, and its popularity raises the question of how biomedical science affects public perceptions of illness. Although existing research has examined how laypeople interpret disease models of addiction, few studies address how they interpret the brain disease model as presented by the media, the version that most citizens are likely to encounter in their everyday lives. This article contributes to existing research by examining Swedish laypeople's interpretations of a news article presenting biomedical research on addiction and analyzing how trust intervenes in their interpretations. Methods: Drawing on an audience study design with qualitative interviews, the participants were asked to read and discuss a newspaper article that explained how alcohol, amphetamine, and nicotine affect the brain. Results: The analysis shows that their interpretations depended on how they perceived their own ability to assess the science portrayed in the article. The participants trust doctors and scientists but doubt their own ability to assess the science, and trust is therefore provisional or pending until this situation changes. In addition, trust requires that the participants are able to recognize and identify with the contents of the news article. Conclusion: This pattern can be understood as a way of dealing with the contradictory expectations laypeople facethey are expected to trust scientific knowledge and to evaluate knowledge claims rationally, but they do not have access to the knowledge that would, supposedly, enable them to do so.

show abstract

Addiction is not a brain disease

Cited by 14 publications

References 5 publications

What does it mean to recover from a gambling disorder? Perspectives of gambling help service users

What does it mean to recover from a gambling disorder? Perspectives of gambling help service users

Changing the narrative: a call to end stigmatizing terminology related to substance use disorders

‘But I’m not a doctor’: pending trust in science among laypeople discussing the brain disease model of addiction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About