327
Sco W. Peters
Case Formulation and Intervention:
Application of the Five Ps Framework in
Substance Use Counseling
Scott W. Peters, PhD, LPC-S, is an associate professor at Texas A&M University – San Antonio. Correspondence may be addressed to
Scott Peters, One University Way, San Antonio, TX 78224, [email protected].
The Professional Counselor™
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 327–336
http://tpcjournal.nbcc.org
© 2020 NBCC, Inc. and Affiliates
doi:10.15241/swp.10.3.327
Substance use and misuse is exceedingly common and has numerous implications, both individual and
societal, impacting millions of Americans directly and indirectly every year. Currently, there are a variety of
empirically based interventions for treating clients who engage in substance use and misuse. The Five Ps
is an idiographically based framework providing clinicians with a systematic and exible means of
addressing substance use and misuse that can be used in conjunction with standard substance use and misuse
interventions. Additionally, its holistic and creative style provides opportunities to address concerns at various
points with a variety of strategies and interventions that will best suit clients’ unique situations. It can assist
both novice and experienced clinicians working with clients who present for counseling with substance use
and misuse. Following a discussion of the Five Ps, a brief case illustration will demonstrate the framework.
Keywords: substance use and misuse, Five Ps, idiographic, systematic, exible
Substance use and misuse in the United States is extremely common. For the year 2016, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 18% of the U.S. population aged 12 and older
had used illicit substances or misused prescription medications (CDC, 2018). The National Survey
on Drug Use and Health asserted that close to 30% of respondents aged 12 and older reported use
of illicit substances in the past month (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
[SAMHSA], 2017). Although these statistics are signicant, it should be noted that “Most people who
use abusable drugs, even most people who use them nonmedically, do so in a reasonably controlled
fashion and without much harm to themselves or anyone else” (Kleiman et al., 2011, p. 2). In the
context of this article, the word abusable indicates substances that when taken are pleasurable enough
to result in excessive dosing or increased frequency of intake (Linden, 2011).
However, there are others who use substances to such an extent that it causes signicant distress
and impairment in their lives, a phenomenon clinically referred to as a substance use disorder (SUD). The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) bases an SUD on a “pathological
paern related to the use of a substance” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 483). In his report
on alcohol, drugs, and health, the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy reported that more than 20 million
Americans have an SUD (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016). Clients who engage in
substance use and misuse can present with a variety of issues beyond use (Bahorik et al., 2017; Compton
et al., 2014; Poorolajal et al., 2016). Thus, there exists a need to concurrently examine and address the
potentially complex nature of client substance use and misuse.
Implications of Substance Use and Misuse
Substance use and misuse carries numerous potential repercussions. Societally, substance use and
misuse consequences exceed “$400 billion in crime, health, and lost productivity” (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 2016, p. 2). Published data on those incarcerated appears to be several
328
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
years old. However, it does suggest that more than 60% had a substance use disorder and 20% were
under the inuence at the time of their oense (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, 2010). Regreably, most do not receive treatment while incarcerated (Belenko et
al., 2013). Additionally, many individuals who engage in substance use and misuse have co-occurring
major medical conditions, such as cancers, cardiovascular accidents (strokes), and respiratory and cardiac
illnesses (Bahorik et al., 2017). This population often experiences stigma and suboptimal health care
results (McNeely et al., 2018; van Boekel et al., 2013). Substance use and misuse has signicant impact
on the occupational sector as well. Substance use and misuse has been correlated with both higher rates
of absenteeism and workplace injuries (Bush & Lipari 2015). Those who engage in substance use and
misuse often have higher rates of unemployment (Compton et al., 2014; Dieter, 2011). This can result in
lack of access to treatment services, contributing to increased stress.
Substance use and misuse also has a negative impact on intimate partners, such as assuming
increased responsibility and navigating unpredictability (Hussaarts et al., 2012). More ominously,
substance use and misuse has been correlated with intimate partner violence (Murphy & Ting, 2010).
Further, substance use and misuse is a signicant risk factor for suicidality (Poorolajal et al., 2016).
Finally, the number of U.S. adults with a comorbid SUD and mental illness has been shown to be
almost 8 million, with only about 5% receiving treatment for both (SAMHSA, 2017). Concurrently
treating both is very complex, challenging, and expensive. This can be even more problematic given
the lack of health care access for large numbers of Americans (Schoen, 2013).
A Holistic Alternative
Addressing client substance use and misuse can be quite complicated, and as mentioned previously,
substance use and misuse impacts users and society in a variety of ways beyond substance intake.
There are several approaches to managing client substance use and misuse that have demonstrated
eectiveness. Among those are 12-step programs (Humphreys et al., 2004), mindfulness-based
interventions (Chiesa & Serrei, 2014), evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy
(McHugh et al., 2010), and family counseling (O’Farrell & Clements, 2012). These approaches can be
accomplished via outpatient counseling, partial hospitalization programs, inpatient and medically
managed substance treatment programs, as well as residential and therapeutic communities. However,
each has some shortcomings. Twelve-step aendance is most benecial with inpatient substance
use and misuse treatment (Karriker-Jae et al., 2018). Evidence-based approaches, such as cognitive
behavioral therapy, tend to be nomothetic, assuming homogeneity and generally geared toward
symptom amelioration (Robinson, 2011). Mindfulness-based strategies are not as eective when used
alone as when used with other approaches (Sancho et al., 2018). Research on the success of family-based
interventions has methodological challenges, such as small sample sizes and the diculty of examining
long-term outcomes (Rowe, 2012).
In addition, using these approaches may result in omiing the uniqueness of clients as a consideration
in treatment. SAMHSA (2020) pointed out the signicance of addressing clients individually based on
their distinctive needs in order to provide the best chance for recovery from substance use and misuse.
SAMHSA’s recommendations t well with a more holistic framework in that such a structure allows
clinicians to develop a multidimensional picture of clients. By examining and exploring clients’ use or
misuse within the context of a multidimensional framework, interventions can be personalized, and
areas of concern can be targeted. Such a framework may enhance the eectiveness of the aforementioned
interventions (Wormer & Davis, 2018). Some of these evidence-based approaches will be demonstrated
later in a case illustration.
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
329
As shown above, there are numerous ways to examine and treat client substance use and misuse.
For example, some interventions use an individual lens, such as cognitive behavioral therapy,
which examines connections between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Morin et al., 2017). Other
approaches observe substance use and misuse from a family or systems perspective, looking at
familial paerns such as communication and normalization of substance use (Bacon, 2019). Delivery
of mindfulness-based interventions may help to address stressful events that previously triggered
substance use (Garland et al., 2014). In addition, there are frameworks that use a formulation
model examining various aspects of clients (Johnstone & Dallos, 2013) such as causal, contributing,
environmental, and personal features, providing a much more expansive view of clients’ concerns.
Client substance use and misuse can be quite challenging for counselors, both novice and
experienced. Case formulation, also referred to as conceptualization, is a skill new counselors often
lack (Liese & Esterline, 2015). Using a framework to assist in case formulation may prove useful to
beginning counselors. Experienced counselors, even with competence in a variety of approaches, can
also benet from using a framework to help address anticipated challenges (Macneil et al., 2012). Case
formulations have been used in a number of areas such as those with psychosis, anxiety, and trauma
(Chadwick et al., 2003; Ingram, 2012; Persons et al., 2013). One such framework is the Five Ps (Macneil
et al., 2012). Macneil and his colleagues (2012) posited that diagnosing was insucient and it was
critical to include other factors such as causal, lifestyle, and personal factors in conceptualizing the case
and formulating a plan. Applying this approach with clients who engage in substance use and misuse
would allow more individual and exible ways to intervene with client substance use and misuse. In
addition, the collaborative nature of the Five Ps reinforces the concept of an idiographic formulation.
This is in keeping with the inherent uniqueness of clients, their concerns, and a variety of factors.
The Five Ps is a type of framework utilizing ve factors developed by Macneil et al. (2012). They
conceptualized a way to look at clients and their problems, systematically and holistically taking into
consideration the (1) Presenting problem, (2) Predisposing factors, (3) Precipitating factors,
(4) Perpetuating factors, and (5) Protective factors. Presenting problems are concerns that clients nd
dicult to manage. Predisposing factors include biological, environmental, or personality considerations
that may put clients at risk of further substance use and misuse. Precipitating factors are those that
proximally bring about substance use and misuse and its resulting diculties. Perpetuating factors are
those that sustain and possibly reinforce clients’ current substance use and misuse challenges. Protective
factors are those that help to moderate actual or potential substance use and misuse impact. The Five
Ps framework promotes a very clear and systematic approach to case formulation or assessment that
potentially provides a wealth of data. It also provides opportunities for a variety of interventions and
strategies targeted to clients and their substance use and misuse or contributing factors.
Given the variations of substances, the level of use, the functional impairment, co-occurrence with
other mental disorders, and inherent client dierences, an idiographically based framework seems
particularly appropriate with this population. The Five Ps permits counselors to both assess and intervene
essentially simultaneously. It allows for client individualization, use of a variety of strategies, ongoing
assessment, and modications as needed. Furthermore, the Five Ps helps clients and counselors explore
relationships between each factor and the presenting problem. This framework is idiographic in nature,
as it looks at clients individually and holistically (Marquis & Holden, 2008). Idiographic case formulation
can be useful for complicated cases, such as those encountered with clients engaged in substance use and
misuse (Haynes et al., 1997). It is systematic, while allowing for exibility and creativity. It can be used in
outpatient, inpatient, and residential seings and possibly as part of an aftercare program.
330
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
Following is a case illustration demonstrating how the Five Ps may be helpful in formulating and
engaging in a clinical application. It should be noted that several evidence-based substance use and
misuse approaches were integrated in an eclectic approach throughout the case example to demonstrate
the idiographic nature of the Five Ps. Many formulation models are administered within a cognitive
behavioral grounding (Chadwick et al., 2003; Easden & Kazanis, 2018; Persons et al., 2013). The Five
Ps does not adhere to any particular theoretical orientation, thus allowing for a greater repertoire of
strategies to draw from to help clients with substance use and misuse.
Implementing the Five Ps: The Case of Dax
A brief description of Dax, a hypothetical client, and the events that prompted him to seek services is
followed by a detailed application of the Five Ps in addressing Dax’s substance use and misuse. It should
be noted that the strategies and interventions applied here are used as illustrations and are specic to
Dax and his concerns. In addition, the interventions demonstrated are not to be assumed the only ones
that can be applied to Dax. They are examples that the author chose to illustrate the Five Ps in practice.
Dax is a 33-year-old married father of two children: a 9-year-old son, Cam, and a 7-year-old daughter,
Zoe. He was recently driving home from work in the evening and law enforcement stopped him because
of erratic driving. The ocers evaluated him, detained him, and subsequently arrested him for driving
while intoxicated. As part of his adjudication, Dax was required to aend ve counseling sessions and
have a clinician’s report provided to the court. Dax presents as extremely frustrated and embarrassed at
being mandated to aend counseling sessions. He is condent that he does not have a problem and that
counseling should be reserved for those who cannot stop drinking. Dax drinks two to three times a week,
usually having one or two shots of whiskey and two to three draft beers. The night he was pulled over,
he had had two additional beers and one additional shot of whiskey on top of his usual consumption
after a telephone argument with his wife, Sara. Additionally, he reports signicant stress and conict
in his marriage as well as concerns over some upcoming diagnostic tests for their daughter related
to a heart murmur. Dax denies any other negative consequences from his alcohol use. He denies any
signicant increase in alcohol use or any other substance use.
Presenting Problem
While being mandated to aend counseling, Dax shares concerns that he is afraid of what his
daughter’s test results will show. He fears that she will need open-heart surgery and that she may die.
The clinician can intervene here by simply normalizing and validating his fears about the test results.
A logical analysis using gentle Socratic dialogue may help to challenge his emotional reactions to his
daughter’s heart murmur (Etoom & Ratnapalan, 2014). In addition, mindfulness strategies can assist
in helping Dax to cognitively diuse from present to future events (Harris, 2019). He is also adamant
that he does not have a problem with alcohol. Here, a conversation about what counseling entails
as well as psychoeducation related to the eects of alcohol on executive functioning may prove
benecial (Day et al., 2015). Acknowledging that his reticence is due to being obligated to aend
counseling may assist in relationship building (Tahan & Sminkey, 2012). The clinician may also seek
more information on the cause of the reported stress between him and his wife.
Predisposing Factors
Dax reports a strong paternal history of substance use and misuse. His father started out drinking
occasionally and over the years slowly developed a dependency on alcohol. Dax further reports his
paternal grandfather died from liver failure. Addressing the potential genetic link to substance use
and misuse may prove benecial in raising Dax’s awareness (Dick & Agrawal, 2008). For example,
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
331
the clinician may ask Dax if they can share how genes are passed on and expressed, like genes for eye
color or hypertension. This may open the door to a conversation regarding how his substance use and
misuse may progress to alcohol use disorder and its denition as a paern of alcohol use leading to
clinically signicant problems, including increase in use, failed aempts to stop, and use leading to
an impaired ability to meet role obligations (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). There could be
a discussion of alcohol use disorder being a disease, not that dierent from any other passed-on trait
or disease. Additionally, Dax often struggles with strong and painful emotions, and alcohol helps
to address them. Here the clinician may utilize strategies drawn from acceptance and commitment
therapy related to his control strategy of using alcohol to avoid his emotions (Harris, 2019). The ball
in the pool metaphor (i.e., holding a beach ball under the water works temporarily, but eventually
it pops back up) can be compared to alcohol temporarily holding those painful emotions down,
eventually to resurface. The clinician may also discuss strategies to help Dax regulate his reactions
using emotion-focused interventions such as positive reframing to ameliorate the stress of his
daughter’s cardiac condition (Plate & Aldao, 2017).
Precipitating Factors
This area explores signicant occurrences that preceded or triggered the presenting problem and its
consequences. Dax shares that he and his wife are conicted about how to proceed with their daughter’s
medical care. Sara is unequivocal in her condence in Zoe’s cardiologist and his competence. Dax,
however, is hyper-focused on surgery and seems to dismiss Sara’s position. At the end of his workday,
he and his wife got into an argument over the phone about an upcoming diagnostic test and the possible
results. Dax was quite upset, cursed at her, and then hung up the phone. He then stopped at a local pub
and had several drinks.
Here, the clinician may use reality-based strategies that address choice and consequences
(Wubbolding & Brickell, 2017). This may include a direct conversation about Dax’s decision to
drink, resulting in his becoming impaired, with the consequence of being detained, charged, and
adjudicated. Dax can then share his and his wife’s perspectives on their daughter’s care. This
conversation can lead to investigating strategies for how each can be heard, including short role-
plays with opportunities to practice (Worrell, 2015). The clinician can provide a variety of potential
spousal responses, allowing for more adaptability and exibility in Dax’s responses. The goal here is
to build Dax’s competence in communicating, both in listening and expressing. Additionally, there
may be a discussion using aspects of existentialism to process inherent anxiety and its connection to
unknowable future events (May, 1950; Wu et al., 2015).
Perpetuating Factors
The emphasis here is on features that continue the presenting problem. For Dax, he shares that
when he and his wife argue, it follows a very predictable paern. They disagree, interrupt one
another, yell, and he calms down by having several beers. He then withdraws and becomes sullen for
a few days. Nothing gets resolved, and this cycle appears once again when they have conict.
The clinician may discuss the concept of circularity and assist in moving from “vicious cycles”
to “virtuous cycles and problem resolution” (Walsh, 2014, p. 162). This involves explaining that
interactions can act as a kind of back-and-forth loop of action–reaction–action without any resolution,
leaving both parties feeling unheard, misunderstood, and frustrated. The goals here are to both break
the paern and to facilitate healthy conversations. Here the clinician may incorporate a solution-focused
strategy exploring a time with Dax when he and his wife have disagreed, but he did not interrupt and
the outcome was positive (de Shazer, 1985). If he cannot identify a time, simple role-plays in which
332
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
Dax does not interrupt or yell and instead experiences dierent outcomes may provide optimism to
Dax. The counselor may also assist Dax in emotional regulation, which may prevent the initiation of
arguments (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2013). In addition, aspects of narrative therapy may provide
an opportunity for Dax to re-author a unique outcome that gives meaning and provides a functional
identity to him as a father and husband, thus building a sense of optimism (White & Epston, 1990).
Protective Factors
Here the focus is on investigating resources and/or supports that may help prevent client substance
use and misuse from further becoming problematic. This factor has generally been underutilized
despite being shown as benecial to clients (Kuyken et al., 2009). This is often the opportunity for the
client to share what may help them move forward, what their assets are, who can support them, and
any other self-identied skills (de Shazer, 1985). These can be in the form of personal characteristics
such as tenacity, intellect, or insight. They may also present in the form of family, friends, or hobbies.
Oftentimes, when the topic of protective factors is used in substance use and misuse, it is related
to deterrence of substance use, notably with adolescents (Liao et al., 2018). In the Five Ps context,
protective factors are used to potentially prevent substance use and misuse from having more negative
impact as well as to increase client resilience. This factor diers markedly from the rst four. Protective
factors move away from the problem areas that need interventions to hope and optimism and look
to future success and competence (Macneil et al., 2012). Once the protective factors are identied, the
ensuing conversation provides opportunities to imagine future outcomes in which protective factors
may come into play should situations occur that the client nds problematic. Second, it also tends to
shift the conversation toward what is present and going well in their lives and away from those areas
that cause distress and suering (de Shazer, 1985).
Discussion
In implementing the Five Ps framework with Dax, the clinician chose to use psychoeducation and
strategies borrowed from acceptance and commitment, reality, Bowenian family systems, and solution-
focused brief therapies to assist Dax with his substance use and misuse. The choice of the above
approaches is only meant as an illustration and not as denitive ways to address this particular client. It
is likely that other clinicians presented with Dax would use a dierent combination of approaches. The
Five Ps is a systematic way to look at clients and their presentation, and its idiographic construction takes
clients’ uniqueness into account. It also allows clinicians to target specic areas of concern (Macneil et
al., 2012) and may be used in a variety of clinical seings. Moreover, the Five Ps align with SAMHSA’s
recommendation that clinicians tailor treatment to each client because no single treatment is particularly
superior (SAMHSA, 2020).
Limitations and Future Research
There are limitations to the Five Ps framework as a way to formulate and intervene with clients’
substance use and misuse. First and foremost, it should be emphasized that this particular framework
has not been empirically tested with client substance use and misuse. However, as mentioned
previously, case formulations have been used across a variety of client concerns (Chadwick et al.,
2003; Ingram, 2012; Persons et al., 2013). Another potential limitation is that the Five Ps may not be
particularly benecial for substance use and misuse in which there is clinical evidence of an SUD that
includes signicant withdrawal symptoms. Client substance use and misuse at that level may need
medical stabilization and detoxication prior to utilization of the Five Ps. In addition, there may be
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
333
clients who are simply not ready or able to address some or most of the dimensions of the Five Ps.
Furthermore, clients like Dax who are mandated to aend substance-related counseling may have
service plans that are not congruent with the Five Ps framework. In spite of these limitations, there
may be several potential areas of inquiry.
Previous studies using frameworks to formulate have often used cognitive behavioral therapy as
the primary intervention (Chadwick et al., 2003; Persons et al., 2013). Given that client substance use
and misuse can be quite complicated, using various approaches within the Five Ps framework may
yield positive results. As Chadwick et al. (2003) noted, examining positive client experiences may
be one way to discover how to increase client participation in substance use and misuse treatment.
Another potential area of study might involve comparing novice counselors to more experienced
counselors. As mentioned previously, novice counselors often lack sucient case formulation skills
(Liese & Esterline, 2015). Examining the two groups’ experiences using the Five Ps may provide
insight to assist counselor training programs related to substance use and misuse skill development.
The implementation of the Five Ps with clients with mild substance use and misuse and those with
more signicant substance use and misuse, possibly using the DSM-5 diagnosis for SUD, may be
another area to explore. This research could point to populations for whom the Five Ps is more
and less eective. Studies utilizing the Five Ps with mandated clients may demonstrate its ecacy,
notably with agencies that require substance-related counseling.
Conclusion
Client substance use and misuse is a signicant problem in the United States, and it continues to
cause diculty for individuals, families, and society. There are numerous methods and combinations
of methods to address substance use and misuse, such as family therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy,
and self-help groups. Their eectiveness has been well researched, and this paper does not propose
a superior way to address substance use and misuse. However, the Five Ps presents a framework in
which counselors can examine and intervene with client substance use and misuse using a variety of
approaches and strategies. The Five Ps can be used in a variety of seings such as a community mental
health agency, primary care clinic, and inpatient or residential treatment centers. The systematic
but exible nature of this framework aords clinicians numerous ways to address substance use
and misuse. For some, receiving substance use and misuse services can be stigmatizing. In fact, this
stigmatization can come from those who are treating them (Luoma et al., 2007). In addition, the vast
majority of those with an SUD never receive treatment (Han et al., 2015). Incorporating the Five Ps,
with its holistic framework, may prove aractive to clients and counselors, thus potentially increasing
the numbers of clients engaged in substance use and misuse treatment. As mentioned previously, the
Five Ps is not meant to replace any other substance use and misuse intervention. It is another way to
address the multifaceted and complicated nature of client substance use and misuse. Novice clinicians,
who often have a more limited repertoire of strategies, may nd the Five Ps valuable because of its
systematic framework to clients. Experienced clinicians understandably have a larger catalogue of
strategies to choose from. However, they may nd this framework valuable as it provides one more
way to address the often-encountered complex challenges of substance use and misuse.
Conict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.
334
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
References
Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2013). One versus many: Capturing the use of multiple emotion regulation
strategies in response to an emotion-eliciting stimulus. Cognition and Emotion, 27(4), 753–760.
hps://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.739998
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Bacon, M. (Ed.). (2019). Family therapy and the treatment of substance use disorders: The family maers model.
Routledge.
Bahorik, A. L., Satre, D. D., Kline-Simon, A. H., Weisner, C. M., & Campbell, C. I. (2017). Alcohol, cannabis,
and opioid use disorders, and disease burden in an integrated healthcare system. Journal of Addiction
Medicine, 11(1), 3–9. hps://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000260
Belenko, S., Hiller, M., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Treating substance use disorders in the criminal justice system.
Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(11), 2–11. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0414-z
Bush, D. M., & Lipari, R. N. (2015, April 16). The CBHSQ report: Substance use and substance use disorder by
industry. hps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK343542
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, August 31). Annual surveillance report of drug-related risks and
outcomes. hps://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pubs/2018-cdc-drug-surveillance-report.pdf
Chadwick, P., Williams, C., & Mackenzie, J. (2003). Impact of case formulation in cognitive behaviour
therapy for psychosis. Behaviour and Research Therapy, 41(6), 671–680.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00033-5
Chiesa, A., & Serrei, A. (2014). Are mindfulness-based interventions eective for substance use disorders? A
systematic review of the evidence. Substance Use & Misuse, 49(5), 492–512.
hps://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2013.770027
Compton, W. M., Gfroerer, J., Conway, K. P., & Finger, M. S. (2014). Unemployment and substance outcomes
in the United States 2002–2010. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 142(1), 350–353.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.06.012
Day, A. M., Kahler, C. W., Ahern, D. C., & Clark, U. S. (2015). Executive functioning in alcohol use studies: A
brief review of ndings and challenges in assessment. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 8(1), 26–40. hps://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638323/pdf/nihms734766.pdf
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. W. W. Norton.
Dick, D. M., & Agrawal, A. (2008). The genetics of alcohol and other drug dependence. Alcohol Research Current
Reviews, 31(2), 111–118. hps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860452/
Easden, M. H., & Kazanis, N. (2018). Case conceptualization research in cognitive behavior therapy: A state
of the science review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 356–384. hps://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22516
Etoom, Y., & Ratnapalan, S. (2014). Evaluation of children with heart murmurs. Clinical Pediatrics, 53(2), 111–
117. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0009922813488653
Garland, E. L., Froeliger, B., & Howard, M. O. (2014). Mindfulness training targets neurocognitive mechanisms
of addiction at the aention-appraisal-emotion interface. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4(173), 1–15.
hps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00173
Han, B., Hedden, S. L., Lipari, R., Copello, E. A. P., & Kroutil, L. A. (2015). Receipt of services for behavioral
health problems: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration. hps://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/les/NSDUH-DR-
FRR3-2014/NSDUH-DR-FRR3-2014/NSDUH-DR-FRR3-2014.htm
Harris, R. (2019). ACT made simple (2nd ed.). New Harbinger.
Haynes, S. N., Leisen, M. B., & Blaine, D. D. (1997). Design of individualized behavioral treatment programs
using functional analytic clinical case models. Psychological Assessment, 9(4), 334–348. hps://www.apa.
org/pubs/journals/pas/index
Henkel, D. (2011). Unemployment and substance use: A review of the literature (1990–2010). Current Drug
Abuse Reviews, 4(1), 4–27. hps://doi.org/10.2174/1874473711104010004
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
335
Humphreys, K., Wing, S., McCarty, D., Chappel, J., Gallant, L., Haberle, B., Horvath, A. T., Kaskutas, L. A.,
Kirk, T., Kivlahan, D., Laudet, A., McCrady, B. S., McLellan, A. T., Morganstern, J., Townsend, M.,
& Weiss, R. (2004). Self-help organizations for alcohol and drug problems: Toward evidence-based
practice and policy. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26(3), 151–158.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(03)00212-5
Hussaarts, P., Roozen, H. G., Meyers, R. J., van de Wetering, B. J. M., & McCrady, B. S. (2012). Problem areas
reported by substance abusing individuals and their concerned signicant others. The American Journal
on Addictions, 21(1), 38–46. hps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00187.x
Ingram, B. L. (2012). Clinical case formulations: Matching the integrative treatment plan to the client (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Johnstone, L., & Dallos, R. (Eds.). (2013). Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: Making sense of people’s
problems (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Karriker-Jae, K. J., Klinger, J. L., Witbrodt, J., & Kaskutas, L. A. (2018). Eects of treatment type on alcohol
consumption partially mediated by Alcoholics Anonymous aendance. Substance Use & Misuse, 53(4),
596–605. hps://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1349800
Kleiman, M. A. R., Caulkins, J. P., & Hawken, A. (2011). Drugs and drug policy: What everyone needs to know.
Oxford University Press.
Kuyken, W., Padesky, C. A., & Dudley, R. (2009). Collaborative case conceptualization: Working eectively with
clients in cognitive-behavioral therapy. Guilford.
Liao, J.-Y., Huang, C.-M., Lee, C. T.-C., Hsu, H.-P., Chang, C.-C., Chuang, C.-J., & Guo, J.-L. (2018). Risk and
protective factors for adolescents’ illicit drug use: A population-based study. Health Education Journal,
77(7), 749–761. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0017896918763462
Liese, B. S., & Esterline, K. M. (2015). Concept mapping: A supervision strategy for introducing case
conceptualization skills to novice therapists. Psychotherapy, 52(2), 190–194.
hps://doi.org/10.1037/a0038618
Linden, D. J. (2011). The compass of pleasure: How our brains make fay foods, orgasm, exercise, marijuana, generosity,
vodka, learning, and gambling feel so good. Penguin.
Luoma, J. B., Twohig, M. P., Wal, T., Hayes, S. C., Roget, N., Padilla, M., & Fisher, G. (2007). An investigation
of stigma in individuals receiving treatment for substance abuse. Addictive Behaviors, 32(7), 1331–1346.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.09.008
Macneil, C. A., Hasty, M. K., Conus, P., & Berk, M. (2012). Is diagnosis enough to guide interventions in mental
health? Using case formulation in clinical practice. BMC Medicine, 10(111), 1–3.
hps://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-111
Marquis, A., & Holden, J. (2008). Mental health professionals’ evaluations of the Integral Intake, a metatheory-
based, idiographic intake instrument. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30(1), 67–94.
hps://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.30.1.j40256207h0581t1
May, R. (1950). The meaning of anxiety. Ronald Press.
McHugh, R. K., Hearon, B. A, & Oo, M. W. (2010). Cognitive behavioral therapy for substance use disorders.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 33(3), 511–525. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2010.04.012
McNeely, J., Kumar, P. C., Rieckmann, T., Sedlander, E., Farkas, S., Chollak, C., Kannry, J. L., Vega, A., Waite,
E. A., Peccoralo, L. A., Rosenthal, R. N., McCarty, D., & Rotrosen, J. (2018). Barriers and facilitators
aecting the implementation of substance use screenings in primary care clinics: A qualitative study of
patients, providers, and sta. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice, 13(8), 1–15.
hps://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8
Morin, J.-F. G., Harris, M., & Conrod, P. J. (2017). A review of CBT treatments for substance use disorders.
Oxford Handbooks Online, 1–49. hps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935291.013.57
Murphy, C. M., & Ting, L. (2010). The eects of treatment for substance use problems on intimate partner
violence: A review of empirical data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 325–333.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.01.006
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2010, February). Behind bars II:
Substance abuse and America’s prison population. hps://www.centeronaddiction.org/addiction-research/
reports/behind-bars-ii-substance-abuse-and-america’s-prison-population
336
The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3
O’Farrell, T. J., & Clements, K. (2012). Review of outcome research on marital and family therapy in treatment
for alcoholism. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 122–144.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00242.x
Persons, J. B., Lemle Becker, V., & Tompkins, M. A. (2013). Testing case formulation hypotheses in
psychotherapy: Two case examples. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 20(4), 399–409.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2013.03.004
Plate, A. J., & Aldao, A. (2017). Emotion regulation in cognitive-behavioral therapy: Bridging the gap between
treatment studies and laboratory experiments. In S. G. Hofmann & G. J. G. Asmundson (Eds.), The
science of cognitive behavioral therapy (pp. 107–127). Academic Press.
Poorolajal, J., Haghtalab, T., Farhadi, M., & Darvishi, N. (2016). Substance use disorder and risk of suicidal
ideation, suicide aempt and suicide death: A meta-analysis. Journal of Public Health, 38(3), e282–e291.
hps://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdv148
Robinson, O. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary
confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13(2), 32–39.
Rowe, C. L. (2012). Family therapy for drug abuse: Review and updates 2003–2010. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 38(1), 59–81. hps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00280.x
Sancho, M., De Gracia, M., Rodríguez, R. C., Mallorquí-Bagué, N., Sánchez-González, J., Trujols, J., Sánchez,
I., Jiménez-Murcia, S., & Menchón, J. M. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of
substance and behavioral addictions: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1–9.
hps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00095
Schoen, C., Osborn, R., Squires, D., & Doty, M. M. (2013). Access, aordability, and insurance complexity are
often worse in the United States compared to ten other countries. Health Aairs, 32(12), 2205–2215.
hps://doi.org/10.1377/hltha.2013.0879
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2017, September 7). Results from the 2016
National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. hps://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/results-
2016-national-survey-drug-use-and-health-detailed-tables
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020, April 21). Behavioral health treatments and
services. hps://www.samhsa.gov/treatment
Tahan, H. A., & Sminkey, P. V. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Building rapport with clients to encourage
desirable behavioral and lifestyle changes. Professional Case Management, 17(4), 164–172.
hps://doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0b013e318253f029
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Facing addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s report
on alcohol, drugs, and health. hps://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/sites/default/les/surgeon-generals-
report.pdf
van Boekel, L. C., Brouwers, E. P. M., van Weeghel, J., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2013). Stigma among health
professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare
delivery: Systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(1–2), 23–35.
hps//doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018
Van Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018). Addiction treatment: A strengths perspective (4th ed.). Cengage.
Walsh, F. (2014). Family therapy: Systemic approaches to practice. In J. R. Brandell (Ed.), Essentials of clinical
social work (pp. 160–185). SAGE.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative therapy to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton.
Worrell, M. (2015). Cognitive behavioural couple therapy. Routledge.
Wu, J. Q., Szpunar, K. K., Godovich, S. A., Schacter, D. L., & Hofmann, S. G. (2015). Episodic future thinking in
generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 36, 1–8.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.09.005
Wubbolding, R. E., & Brickell, J. (2017). Counselling with reality therapy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
