| 其他摘要 | Relapse prevention among drug addicts has been regarded as a central and difficult area of addiction research. Currently, many international and indigenous studies have investigated the biological, psychological and social risk factors of relapses, but the development of comprehensive assessment applying previous research findings on the risks in relapse among drug addicts (especially those within the non-incarcerated settings) remained very limited. In accordance with the biopsychosocial multifactor model as a theoretical foundation, and through literature review, clinical expertise, case interviews, and panel discussions, the original risk evaluation scale was constructed from the biological (withdrawal symptoms, and obsessive compulsiveness), psychological (negative affect, and cognitive bias), and social factors (cue exposure, and social support) comprising three latent factors and six minor dimensions, and developed into the final scale based on a pilot test. Subsequently, the scale was formally assessed by 269 drug addicts undergoing volunteered rehabilitation, and their relapse risks were systematically evaluated based on obvious theoretical implications and practical values. The research entails with the following conclusions: 1. The Relapse Risk Assessment Scale for Non-Incarcerated Drug Addicts directly reflected the facets of relapse risks among this population, in line with reality. The scale based on the biopsychosocial multifactor model as the theoretical foundation, was structured from three latent factors and six minor dimensions, that is the biological (withdrawal symptoms, and obsessive compulsiveness), psychological (negative affect, and cognitive bias), and social factors (cue exposure, and social support), with good validity and reliability, and can be used as an evaluation inventory for assessment of relapse risks for the non-incarcerated drug addicts. 2. No significant differences in the dimensions and final scores for relapse risks were found among drug addicts with different genders that were currently undergoing rehabilitation. 3. Drug addicts that volunteered to rehabilitate nevertheless showed significant age-related differences in the dimension of withdrawal symptoms, those that aged 25 years and less were among the most severe in withdrawal symptoms among all the age groups. 4. Moreover, those that took traditional-type drugs showed more severe levels in terms of withdrawal symptoms, compulsion, negative affect, biased cognition, lack of support, as compared to those took new-type drugs, and exhibit higher risks in relapses. 5. Drug addicts that were rehabilitated under three months showed more severe levels in dimensions of withdrawal symptoms, compulsion, negative affect, biased cognition, and cue exposure as compared to those that were rehabilitated over 36 months, and exhibit higher risks in relapses. 6. Drug addicts that were unemployed showed higher levels in compulsion, negative affect, lack of support dimensions as compared to those with regular full-time employment, and exhibited higher risks in relapses; those with part-time employment showed more severe scores in terms of lack of support as compared to addicts with regular full-time employment, suggesting they acquired less support from society and family, which heightened the risk in relapses. 7. Voluntarily rehabilitated drug addicts that were married and live with spouse were lower in all the relapse risk dimensions except for levels of withdrawal symptoms, and exhibited lower risks in relapses.
|
修改评论