Rationale: It is well established that Substance Use Disorders (SUD) have severe health consequences. Despite behavioral and pharmacological treatment options, relapse rates remain high. In particular, for non-opioid drugs, such as amphetamines, cocaine, base-coke and cannabis, established, evidence-based pharmacological options to reduce craving, to substitute substance use or to enforce abstinence are lacking. Therefore, there is a need for effective interventions for patients who use non-opioid drugs to reach and maintain long-term abstinence. A potential interesting intervention is addiction-focused Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (AF-EMDR) therapy. However, the limited research on AF-EMDR therapy and mixed findings thus far prohibit clinical use. Recently, on the basis of diverse findings thus far, an adjusted AF-EMDR therapy protocol has been developed.
Objective: to investigate areas of uncertainty about a possible future pilot RCT using AF-EMDR as an add-on intervention in inpatients who use non-opioid drugs and receive regular, inpatient addiction treatment, by determining: * Feasibility. * Potential clinical efficacy. Study population: adults with a primary non-opioid use disorder, who are admitted to an inpatient addiction care clinic. A total of nine eligible participants will be allocated (allocation ratio 1:1:1) at random, in a non-concurrent fashion to one of three baseline durations. Intervention: a total of four 90 min. sessions of AF-EMDR twice per week added to TAU. Main study parameters/endpoints: * Feasibility issues. * Changes in daily craving.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
9
Investigational treatment All participants receive four 90 min. AF-EMDR sessions within a timeframe of two weeks following the baseline phase. The AF-EMDR treatment will be provided by the principal investigators, a level II EMDR therapist (RvdH) and an EMDR consultant in training who developed the AF-EMDR protocol. The EMDR therapist (RvdH) will be trained by the EMDR consultant (WM), who is available for consultation. Additionally, both participate monthly in peer-supervision whereby videotaped sessions are discussed. See appendix 1 for a detailed understanding of the AF-EMDR protocol.
Addiction clinic 'Tiel' IrisZorg
Tiel, Gelderland, Netherlands
RECRUITINGParticipants acceptability
The acceptability of AF-EMDR to participants in terms of compliance, measured by the total number of sessions attended and the proportion of attended versus non attended (planned) sessions; a higher proportion of attended sessions reflects better compliance.
Time frame: 1 year
Therapist acceptability
The acceptability of AF-EMDR to therapists in terms of adherence to the protocol, measured by the score of an independent rater on an a-priori established adherence rating protocol; a higher score reflects better adherence. Minimum=0 ;maximum=100
Time frame: 1 year
Study adherence of participants
from randomization until follow-up in terms of completion of tasks. A higher amount of completion means a better outcome.
Time frame: 1 year
Experienced (by participants) acceptability and burden
The number of experienced facilitators and barriers and subjective effectiveness of the AF-EMDR intervention.
Time frame: 1 year
Change in: Subjective Units of Distress (SUD)
Within and/or over AF-EMDR sessions change in: Subjective Units of Distress (SUD) (Likert-type scales), a higher score reflects a worse outcome.
Time frame: 1 year
Change in craving
Within and/or over AF-EMDR sessions change in: Craving (Likert-type scale), a higher score reflects a worse outcome.
Time frame: 1 year
Change in Level of Urge (LoU)
Within and/or over AF-EMDR sessions change in: Change in Level of Urge (LoU), a higher score reflects a worse outcome.
Time frame: 1 year
Change in: Level of Positive Affect (LoPA)
Within and/or over AF-EMDR sessions change in: Level of Positive Affect (LoPA), a higher score reflects a better outcome.
Time frame: 1 year
changes in: Craving (MATE Q1: OCDS-5)
Baseline to follow-up assessment changes in: Craving (MATE Q1: OCDS-5), a higher score reflects a worse outcome
Time frame: 1 year
changes in: Craving-related self-control/self-efficacy (SCCQ)
Baseline to follow-up assessment changes in: Craving-related self-control/self-efficacy (SCCQ), a higher score reflects a worse outcome
Time frame: 1 year
changes in: Positive incentive value (SCCQ)
Baseline to follow-up assessment changes in: Positive incentive value (SCCQ), a higher score reflects a worse outcome
Time frame: 1 year
changes in: Substance use (past 30 days) (MATE section 1)
Baseline to follow-up assessment changes in: Substance use (past 30 days) (MATE section 1), a higher score reflects a worse outcome
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.