Leeds Dependence Questionnaire: New Data from a Large Sample of Clinic Attenders

Heather, Nick; Raistrick, Duncan; Tober, Gillian; Godfrey, Christine; Parrott, Steve

doi:10.3109/16066350109141753

Cited by 23 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of addiction severity, the average Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ) score (see measures section) at baseline was in the severe range at 18.7 ( SD = 8.7), which is similar to the mean of 19.7 previously reported in a larger clinical sample of older adults with alcohol/opiate dependence (Heather et al, 2001). Similar to other prevalence estimates (Kelly et al, 2010a; Langenbach et al, 2010; Schroder et al, 2008) the prevalence of concurrent (past year) co-occurring Axis I disorders (other than SUD) was 51.2%.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 76%

How many or how much? Testing the relative influence of the number of social network risks versus the amount of time exposed to social network risks on post-treatment substance use

Eddie

Kelly

2017

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Having high-risk, substance-using friends is associated with young adult substance use disorder (SUD) relapse. It is unclear, however, whether it is the total number of high-risk friends, or the amount of time spent with high-risk friends that leads to relapse. Unclear also, is to what extent low-risk friends buffer risk. This study examined the influence of number of high-risk and low-risk friends, and the amount time spent with these friends on post-treatment percent days abstinent (PDA). Method Young adult inpatients (N = 302) were assessed at intake, and 3, 6, and 12 months on social network measures and PDA. Mixed models tested for effects of number of high- and low-risk friends, and time spent with these friends on PDA, and for net-risk friend effects to test whether low-risk friends offset risk. Results Within and across assessments, number of, and time spent with high-risk friends was negatively associated with PDA, while the inverse was true for low-risk friends. Early post-treatment, time spent with friends more strongly predicted PDA than number of friends. Participants were more deleteriously affected by time with high-risk friends the longer they were out of treatment, while contemporaneously protection conferred by low-risk friends increased. This interaction effect, however, was not observed with number of high- or low-risk friends, or number of friends net-risk. Conclusions Young adult SUD patients struggling to break ties with high-risk friends should be encouraged to minimize time with them. Clinicians should also encourage patients to grow their social network of low-risk friends.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 76%

How many or how much? Testing the relative influence of the number of social network risks versus the amount of time exposed to social network risks on post-treatment substance use

Eddie

Kelly

2017

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most common primary substance used was alcohol (28.1%) or marijuana (28.1%), followed by heroin or other opiates (22.4%), cocaine or crack (12.2%), and amphetamines (5.9%). In terms of severity of dependence, average Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ) scores (see measures section) at baseline were 18.7 (SD=8.7) in this sample, similar to the mean of 19.7 in a larger clinical sample of older adults, with primary alcohol or opiate dependence (Heather et al 2001). The prevalence of current, co-occurring Axis I mental disorders (other than SUD) has ranged from 40–60% in other studies of youth in SUD treatment (Kelly et al, 2010; Langenbach et al 2010; Schroder et al 2008), comparable to the prevalence rate of 51.2% found in this sample.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 53%

“Ready, willing, and (not) able” to change: Young adults’ response to residential treatment

Kelly

Urbanoski

Hoeppner

et al. 2012

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Young adulthood represents a key developmental period for the onset of substance use disorder (SUD). While the number of young adults entering treatment has increased, little is known about the mechanisms of change and early recovery processes in this important clinical population. This study investigated during-treatment change in key therapeutic processes (psychological distress, motivation, self-efficacy, coping skills, and commitment to AA/NA), and tested their relation to outcome at 3 months post-treatment. Methods Young adults undergoing residential treatment (N=303; age 18–24; 26% female; 95% Caucasian) were enrolled in a naturalistic prospective study and assessed at intake, mid-treatment, discharge, and 3 months following discharge. Repeated-measures and regression analyses modeled during-treatment change in process variables and impact on outcome. Results Statistically significant medium to large effect sizes were observed for changes in most processes during treatment, with the exception of motivation, which was high at treatment intake and underwent smaller, but still significant, change. In turn, these during-treatment changes all individually predicted 3-month abstinence to varying degrees, with self-efficacy emerging as the sole predictor in a simultaneous regression. Conclusions Findings help to clarify the mechanisms through which treatment confers recovery-related benefit among young adults. At treatment intake, high levels of abstinence motivation but lower coping, self-efficacy, and commitment to AA/NA, suggests many entering treatment may be “ready and willing” to change, but “unable” to do so without help. Treatment appears to work, in part, by helping to maintain motivation while conferring greater ability and confidence to enact such change.

show abstract

“…Ten per cent (10.0%) had a university degree or equivalent, 35.7% had no qualifications of any kind, 34.8% were in full-time employment, and 54.1% were either married and living with a partner, or single and in a current relationship. Mean score on the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (Raistrick et al, 1994) was 17.0 (95% CI = 15.9-18.2), indicating a moderate to severe level of dependence in the sample as a whole (see Heather et al, 2001). Mean score on the APQ was 12.3 (95% CI = 11.7-=12.9), indicating a slightly above average level of alcohol-related problems for a British treatment sample (Drummond, 1990).…”

Section: Sample Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A revised edition of the Readiness to Change Questionnaire [Treatment Version]

Heather

Hönekopp

2008

Addiction Research & Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Leeds Dependence Questionnaire: New Data from a Large Sample of Clinic Attenders

Cited by 23 publications

References 14 publications

How many or how much? Testing the relative influence of the number of social network risks versus the amount of time exposed to social network risks on post-treatment substance use

How many or how much? Testing the relative influence of the number of social network risks versus the amount of time exposed to social network risks on post-treatment substance use

“Ready, willing, and (not) able” to change: Young adults’ response to residential treatment

A revised edition of the Readiness to Change Questionnaire [Treatment Version]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About