Educating Treatment Professionals About Addiction Science Research: Demographics of Knowledge and Belief Changes

Abstract

Communication of accurate, objective, and timely scientific information to treatment professionals is important--especially in the "drug abuse" and addiction field where misinformation and a lack of exposure to new information are common. The purpose of this study was to assess knowledge and belief changes that accompanied educational workshops (3 or 6 hr-long) on addiction science targeted to treatment professionals (N=1403) given in the United States and Puerto Rico between July 2000 and August 2001. Each workshop covered three main concepts: (1) terms and definitions; (2) basic neurochemistry of addiction; and (3) how new neurobiological knowledge will affect the treatment of addictions in the future. Analysis of variance was used to compare mean pretest to posttest change scores among levels of four independent variables: gender, age, occupation/position, and race/ethnicity. Workshop participants achieved a significant improvement in knowledge about addiction with younger groups achieving greater gains. Participants' beliefs shifted in the desired direction. Significant differences in belief shifts occurred among occupational and gender groups, but not among race/ethnicity or age groups. There was also a consistent change in the policy belief subscale that related to how strongly the audience members believed research on addiction was important. We conclude that addiction science education provided to treatment professionals can increase their knowledge and change their beliefs about the causes of addictions. In addition, the workshop participants form a base of constituents who are likely to support greater addiction research funding.

Teaching Basic Knowledge on Substance Use Disorders: The Impact of e-Learning on Health Professionals

“…Participants in our distance learning course on the general concepts of SUDs moved towards having higher test scores. This finding is consistent with those described in previous studies 15,26,27 . Test score progression was identical in both groups and independent of their initial background.…”

Epidemiology ofDSM-5Alcohol Use Disorder

“…Rather than lack of insurance, fears of stigmatization and beliefs that treatment is ineffective explain the lack of AUD treatment in the United States. [50][51][52][53][54] Nonetheless, a large body of literature supports the effectiveness of treatment of AUD. Prior NESARC findings 55 show that participation in 12-step groups increases the likelihood of recovery, consistent with randomized clinical trials testing the efficacy of 12-step facilitation administered by health care practitioners.…”

In Defense of “Dependence”

“…I contend that simply changing the word from “dependence” to “addiction” in DSM‐V will have no positive effect, but that proper education of physicians, and in particular, pain management specialists, about current DSM terminology would accomplish more. In fact, our research (Lawson et al., 2004) clearly showed that counselors and other treatment professionals, including physicians, “get it” when given lectures on the neuroscience of addiction, including proper terminology. After‐training assessments clearly show knowledge gain and belief changes that persist for at least 6 months after training about “dependence.” Simple descriptions of “chemical dependence,”“psychological dependence,” and “physical (physiological) dependence” are easily grasped by such audiences, and they readily learn (analyzed by post‐test) that “DSM dependence” is not the same as “physical dependence,” and that withdrawal is not the same as DSM dependence.…”