Scepticism and hope in a complex predicament: People with addictions deliberate about neuroscience

Exploring perceptions of genetic risk and the transmission of substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUDs) have been consistently shown to exhibit moderate intergenerational continuity (1-3). While much research has examined genetic and social influences on addiction, less attention has been paid to clients' and lay persons' perceptions of genetic influences on the heritability of SUD (4) and implications for treatment.

METHODS

For this qualitative study, twenty-six structured Working Model of the Child Interviews (WMCI) were conducted with mothers receiving inpatient SUD treatment. These interviews were thematically analyzed for themes related to maternal perceptions around intergenerational transmission of substance use behaviours.

RESULTS

Findings show that over half of the mothers in this sample were preoccupied with their children's risk factors for addictions. Among this group, 29% spontaneously expressed concerns about their children's genetic risk for addiction, 54% shared worries about their children's propensity for addiction without mentioning the word gene or genetic. Additionally, 37% had challenges in even discussing their children's future when prompted. These concerns mapped onto internal working models of attachment in unexpected ways, with parents who were coded with balanced working models being more likely to discuss intergenerational risk factors and parents with disengaged working models displaying difficulties in discussing their child's future.

CONCLUSION

This research suggests that the dominant discourse around the brain-disease model of addictions, in its effort to reduce stigma and self-blame, may have unintended downstream consequences for parents' mental models about their children's risks for future addiction. Parents receiving SUD treatment, and the staff who deliver it, may benefit from psychoeducation about the intergenerational transmission of SUD as part of treatment.

Analysis of YouTube content on substance use disorder treatment and recovery

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Emerging literature suggests the role of social media in substance use disorders (SUD). This study aimed to explore the content of YouTube videos for persons on SUD treatment/recovery, describing the users' exposure and engagement metrics and understanding viewers' perspectives.

METHODS

We generated a set of 10 key phrases to search on YouTube. Eighty eligible videos were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Content analysis of all videos and thematic analysis of 30 videos were done using the three most viewed videos from each key phrase. The reliability of videos was assessed using a modified DISCERN. The total number of views, likes, dislikes, and comments were noted and created engagement metrics. The linguistic analysis of viewers' comments was done to assess their perspectives.

RESULTS

Sixty-three (78.8%) videos were from the US, and 59 (73.8%) were intended for persons or families with substance misuse. Persons in recovery uploaded 23 (28.7%) videos. We identified five themes - reasons for using drugs, symptoms of addiction, consequences of drug use, how to stop drug use, and expressed tone in the language. The positivity and relative positivity ratios were highest for videos developed by persons in recovery. There was a negative correlation between the relative positivity ratio and content fostering internalized stigma. Words with negative emotional experiences dominated the viewers' comments.

CONCLUSION

YouTube content on SUD treatment and recovery is popular and revolves around the biopsychosocial understanding of addiction. There is an urgent need for a language policy and regulation of non-scientific content.

Neural imaginaries at work: Exploring Australian addiction treatment providers' selective representations of the brain in clinical practice

Although addiction neuroscience hopes to uncover the neural basis of addiction and deliver a wide range of novel neuro-interventions to improve the treatment of addiction, the translation of addiction neuroscience to practice has been widely viewed as a ‘bench to bedside’ failure. Importantly, though, this linear ‘bench to bedside’ conceptualisation of knowledge translation has not been attentive to the role addiction treatment providers play in reproducing, translating, or resisting neuroscientific knowledge. This study explores how, to what extent, and for what purpose addiction treatment providers deploy neuroscientific representations and discuss the brain in practice. It draws upon interviews with 20 Australian treatment providers, ranging from addiction psychiatrists in clinics to case-workers in therapeutic communities. Our findings elucidate how different treatment providers: (1) invoke the authority and make use of neuroscience in practice (2) make reference to neuroscientific concepts (e.g., neuroplasticity); and sometimes represent the brain using vivid neurobiological language, metaphors, and stories; and, (3) question the therapeutic benefits of discussing neuroscience and the use of neuroimages with clients. We argue that neurological ontologies of addiction, whilst shown to be selectively and strategically invoked in certain circumstances, may also at times be positioned as lacking centrality and salience within clinical work. In doing so, we render problematic any straightforward assumption about the universal import of neuroscience to practice that underpins narratives of ‘bench to bedside’ translation.

Smokers' Understandings of Addiction to Nicotine and Tobacco: A Systematic Review and Interpretive Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Background

Despite the centrality of addiction in academic accounts of smoking, there is little research on smokers' beliefs about addiction to smoking, and the role of nicotine in tobacco dependence. Smokers' perspectives on nicotine's role in addiction are important given the increasing prevalence of nontobacco nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating smokers' understandings and lay beliefs about addiction to smoking and nicotine.

Method

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for studies investigating lay beliefs about addiction to smoking. Twenty-two quantitative and 24 qualitative studies met inclusion criteria. Critical interpretive synthesis was used to analyze the results.

Results

Very few studies asked about addiction to nicotine. Quantitative studies that asked about addiction to smoking showed that most smokers believe that cigarettes are an addictive product, and that they are addicted to smoking. Across qualitative studies, nicotine was not often mentioned by participants. Addiction to smoking was most often characterized as a feeling of "need" for cigarettes resulting from an interplay between physical, mental, and social processes. Overall, we found that understandings of smoking were more consistent with the biopsychosocial model of addiction than with more recent models that emphasize the biological aspects of addiction.

Conclusion

Researchers should not treat perceptions of addiction to smoking interchangeably with perceptions of addiction to nicotine. More research on lay beliefs about nicotine is required, particularly considering the increasing use of e-cigarettes and their potential for long-term nicotine maintenance for harm reduction.

Implications

Quantitative studies show that most smokers believe that smoking is addictive and that they are addicted. A feeling of "need" for cigarettes was central to qualitative accounts of addiction, but nicotine was not often discussed. Overall, smokers' understandings of addiction reflect a biopsychosocial model rather than a neurobiological one. Given the growing market for e-cigarettes and therapeutic nicotine, more research is required on lay beliefs about nicotine and addiction.

When the Brain Leaves the Scanner and Enters the Clinic

Addiction neuroscience promises to uncover the neural basis of addiction by mapping changes in the “diseased brains” of people with “drug addictions.” It hopes to offer revolutionary treatments for addiction and reduce the stigma experienced by those seeking treatment for a medical, rather than moral, condition. While the promises of addiction neuroscience have received considerable attention, relatively few studies have examined how neuroscientific discourses and promises play out in drug treatment settings. Instead of asking how neuroscience might measure or treat a preexisting addiction “problem,” we draw on poststructuralist ideas to trace how neuroscientific discourses produce addiction as a certain type of “problem” and the effects of these particular problematizations. Based on interviews with a range of different types of treatment providers working in Victoria, Australia, we discuss three themes that reveal neuroscientific discourses at work: (1) constituting pathological subjects, (2) neuroplasticity and “recovery,” and (3) the alleviation of guilt and shame via references to the “diseased brain.” On the basis of our analysis, we argue that dominant neuroscientific discourses produce patients as pathologized subjects, requiring medical treatment. We also contend that the intersection of neuroscientific and recovery discourses enacts “recovery” in terms of brain “recovery” through references to neuroplasticity. Further, when neuroscientific and moral discourses intersect, addicted subjects are absolved from the guilt associated with immoral behavior emerging from a “hijacked brain.” We conclude by emphasizing the need for future critical work to explore the complex ways in which neuroscientific discourses operate in localized care ecologies.

"I don't have to know why it snows, I just have to shovel it!": Addiction Recovery, Genetic Frameworks, and Biological Citizenship

The gene has infiltrated the way citizens perceive themselves and their health. However, there is scant research that explores the ways genetic conceptions infiltrate individuals' understanding of their own health as it relates to a behavioral trait, like addiction. Do people seeking treatment for addiction ground their self-perception in biology in a way that shapes their experiences? We interviewed 63 participants in addiction treatment programs, asking how they make meaning of a genetic understanding of addiction in the context of their recovery, and in dealing with the stigma of addiction. About two-thirds of people in our sample did not find a genetic conception of addiction personally useful to them in treatment, instead believing that the cause was irrelevant to their daily struggle to remain abstinent. One-third of respondents believed that an individualized confirmation of a genetic predisposition to addiction would facilitate their dealing with feelings of shame and accept treatment. The vast majority of our sample believed that a genetic understanding of addiction would reduce the stigma associated with addiction, which demonstrates the perceived power of genetic explanations in U.S. society. Our results indicate that respondents (unevenly) ground their self-perception of themselves as an addicted individual in biology.

Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction

BACKGROUND

Addictions are highly stigmatized and increasingly construed as biomedical diseases caused by genes, partly to reduce stigma by deflecting blame. However, genetic explanations may have negative effects, which have been understudied in the context of addiction. How the effects of genetic explanations might differ for substance addictions versus behavioral addictions is also unknown.

AIMS

This study examined the impact of genetic explanations for addiction on measures of treatment expectancies, blame, and perceived agency and self-control, as well as whether these varied depending on whether the addiction was to a substance or a behavior.

METHODS

Participants read about a person ('Charlie') with either alcohol use disorder or gambling disorder, receiving either a genetic or nongenetic explanation of Charlie's problem. They rated how much they blamed Charlie for his disorder, his likelihood of benefitting from medication or psychotherapy, and how much agency and self-control they ascribed to him.

RESULTS

Compared to the nongenetic explanation, the genetic explanation reduced blame and increased confidence in the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. However, it also decreased the expected effectiveness of psychotherapy and reduced ascriptions of agency and self-control.

CONCLUSION

Genetic explanations for addiction appear to be a 'double-edged sword', with beneficial effects that come at a cost.

Sex differences, gender and addiction

This review discusses alcohol and other forms of drug addiction as both a sociocultural and biological phenomenon. Sex differences and gender are not solely determined by biology, nor are they entirely sociocultural. The interactions among biological, environmental, sociocultural, and developmental influences result in phenotypes that may be more masculine or more feminine. These gender-related sex differences in the brain can influence the responses to drugs of abuse, progressive changes in the brain after exposure to drugs of abuse and whether addiction results from drug-taking experiences. In addition, the basic laboratory evidence for sex differences is discussed within the context of four types of sex/gender differences. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Prehending Addiction: Alcohol and Other Drug Professionals' Encounters With "New" Addictions

This article investigates the ways new forms of addiction are encountered by professionals working in the area of alcohol and other drugs. Combining interviews with policymakers, service providers, and peer advocates in three countries (Australia, Canada, and Sweden), and Mike Michael's utilization of the notion of prehension for science communication, we track the notions of addiction, drugs, and subjectivity that emerge when alcohol and other drug professionals encounter what Fraser, Moore and Keane call the addicting of nonsubstance-related practices. The analysis has three parts: constituting addiction unity, questioning addiction unity, and conflicting logics of addicting processes. We argue that specific articulations of drugs and health and specific health professional and addiction subjects are made anew in these encounters. These notions of drugs, health, and subjectivity shape how alcohol and other drug professionals engage with substance-related addictions. In concluding, we consider the implications of new addictions for professional practice.