Hubbry Logo
RelapseRelapseMain
Open search
Relapse
Community hub
Relapse
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Relapse
Relapse
Relapse
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In internal medicine, relapse or recidivism is a recurrence of a past (typically medical) condition. For example, multiple sclerosis and malaria often exhibit peaks of activity and sometimes very long periods of dormancy, followed by relapse or recrudescence.

In psychiatry, relapse or reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior, is the recurrence of pathological drug use, self harm or other symptoms after a period of recovery. Relapse is often observed in individuals who have developed a drug addiction or a form of drug dependence, as well as those who have a mental disorder.

Risk factors

[edit]

Dopamine D2 receptor availability

[edit]

The availability of the dopamine receptor D2 plays a role in self-administration and the reinforcing effects of cocaine and other stimulants. The D2 receptor availability has an inverse relationship to the vulnerability of reinforcing effects of the drug. With the D2 receptors becoming limited, the user becomes more susceptible to the reinforcing effects of cocaine. It is currently unknown if a predisposition to low D2 receptor availability is possible; however, most studies support the idea that changes in D2 receptor availability are a result, rather than a precursor, of cocaine use. It has also been noted that D2 receptors may return to the level existing prior to drug exposure during long periods of abstinence, a fact which may have implications in relapse treatment.[1]

Social hierarchy

[edit]

Social interactions, such as the formation of linear dominance hierarchies, also play a role in vulnerability to substance use. Animal studies suggest that there exists a difference in D2 receptor availability between dominant and subordinate animals within a social hierarchy as well as a difference in the function of cocaine to reinforce self-administration in these animal groups. Socially dominant animals exhibit higher availability of D2 receptors and fail to maintain self-administration.[2]

Triggers

[edit]

Drug taking and relapse are heavily influenced by a number of factors including the pharmacokinetics, dose, and neurochemistry of the drug itself as well as the drug taker’s environment and drug-related history. Reinstatement of drug use after a period of non-use or abstinence is typically initiated by one or a combination of the three main triggers: stress, re-exposure to the drug or drug-priming, and environmental cues. These factors may induce a neurochemical response in the drug taker that mimics the drug and thus triggers reinstatement.[3] These cues may lead to a strong desire or intention to use the drug, a feeling termed craving by Abraham Wikler in 1948. The propensity for craving is heavily influenced by all three triggers to relapse and is now an accepted hallmark of substance dependence.[4] Stress is one of the most powerful stimuli for reinstating drug use because stress cues stimulate craving and drug-seeking behavior during abstinence. Stress-induced craving is also predictive of time to relapse. Comparably, addicted individuals show an increased susceptibility to stressors than do non-addicted controls. Examples of stressors that may induce reinstatement include emotions of fear, sadness, or anger, a physical stressor such as a footshock or elevated sound level, or a social event.[5] Drug-priming is exposing the abstinent user to the addictive substances, which will induce reinstatement of the drug-seeking behavior and drug self-administration.[6] Stimuli that have a pre-existing association with a given drug or with use of that drug can trigger both craving and reinstatement. These cues include any items, places, or people associated with the drug.[7]

Treatment

[edit]

Relapse treatment is somewhat of a misnomer because relapse itself is a treatment failure; however there exist three main approaches that are currently used to reduce the likelihood of drug relapse. These include pharmacotherapy, cognitive behavioral techniques, and contingency management. The main goals of treating substance dependence and preventing relapse are to identify the needs that were previously met by use of the drug and to develop the skills needed to meet those needs in an alternative way.[7]

Pharmacotherapy

[edit]
Related article: Drug rehabilitation

Various medications are used to stabilize an addicted user, reduce the initial drug use, and prevent reinstatement of the drug. Medications can normalize the long-term changes that occur in the brain and nervous system as a result of prolonged drug use. This method of therapy is complex and multi-faceted because the brain target for the desire to use the drug may be different from the target induced by the drug itself.[8] The availability of various neurotransmitter receptors, such as the dopamine receptor D2, and changes in the medial prefrontal cortex are prominent targets for pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse because they are heavily linked to drug-induced, stress-induced, and cue-induced relapse. Receptor recovery can be upregulated by administration of receptor antagonists, while pharmacotherapeutic treatments for neruoadaptations in the medial prefrontal cortex are still relatively ineffective due to lacking knowledge of these adaptations on the molecular and cellular level.[1][9]

Cognitive behavioral techniques

[edit]

The various behavioral approaches to treating relapse focus on the precursors and consequences of drug-taking and reinstatement. Cognitive-behavioral techniques (CBT) incorporate Pavlovian conditioning and operant conditioning, characterized by positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, in order to alter the cognitions, thoughts, and emotions associated with drug-taking behavior. A main approach of CBT is cue exposure, during which the abstinent user is repeatedly exposed to the most salient triggers without exposure to the substance in hopes that the substance will gradually lose the ability to induce drug-seeking behavior. This approach is likely to reduce the severity of a relapse than to prevent one from occurring altogether. Another method teaches addicts basic coping mechanisms to avoid using the illicit drug. It is important to address any deficits in coping skills, to identify the needs that likely induce drug-seeking, and to develop another way to meet them.[10]

Relapse prevention

[edit]
Main article: Relapse prevention

Relapse prevention attempts to group the factors that contribute to relapse into two broad categories: immediate determinants and covert antecedents. Immediate determinants are the environmental and emotional situations that are associated with relapse, including high-risk situations that threaten an individual’s sense of control, coping strategies, and outcome expectancies. Covert antecedents, which are less obvious factors influencing relapse, include lifestyle factors such as stress level and balance, and urges and cravings. The relapse prevention model teaches addicts to anticipate relapse by recognizing and coping with various immediate determinants and covert antecedents. The RP model shows the greatest success with treatment of alcoholism but it has not been proven superior to other treatment options.[7][10] Relapse may also be more likely to occur during certain times, such as the holiday season when stress levels are typically higher.[11] So, emphasizing relapse prevention strategies during these times is ideal.

Contingency management

[edit]
Main article: Contingency management

In contrast to the behavioral approaches above, contingency management concentrates on the consequences of drug use as opposed to its precursors. Addict behavior is reinforced, by reward or punishment, based on ability to remain abstinent. A common example of contingency management is a token or voucher system, in which abstinence is rewarded with tokens or vouchers that individuals can redeem for various retail items.[12]

Animal models

[edit]

There are vast ethical limitations in drug addiction research because humans cannot be allowed to self-administer drugs for the purpose of being studied.[8] However, much can be learned about drugs and the neurobiology of drug taking by the examination of laboratory animals.[13] Most studies are performed on rodents or non-human primates with the latter being most comparable to humans in pharmacokinetics, anatomy of the prefrontal cortex, social behavior, and life span.[14] Other advantages to studying relapse in non-human primates include the ability of the animal to reinstate self-administration, and to learn complex behaviors in order to obtain the drug.[8] Animal studies have shown that a reduction in negative withdrawal symptoms is not necessary to maintain drug taking in laboratory animals; the key to these studies is operant conditioning and reinforcement.[3]

Protocols

[edit]

Self-administration

[edit]

To self-administer the drug of interest the animal is implanted with an intravenous catheter and seated in a primate chair equipped with a response lever. The animal is seated in a ventilated chamber and trained on a schedule of drug self-administration. In many studies the self-administration task begins with presentation of a stimulus light (located near the response panel) that may change colors or turn off upon completion of the operant task. The change in visual stimulus is accompanied by an injection of the given drug through the implanted catheter. This schedule is maintained until the animals learn the task.[15]

Extinction

[edit]

Extinction in non-human primates is analogous, with some limitations, to abstinence in humans. In order to extinguish drug-seeking behavior the drug is substituted with a saline solution. When the animal performs the task it has been trained to perform it is no longer reinforced with an injection of the drug. The visual stimulus associated with the drug and completion of the task is also removed. The extinction sessions are continued until the animal ceases the drug-seeking behavior by pressing the lever.[16]

Reinstatement

[edit]

After the animal’s drug-seeking behavior is extinguished, a stimulus is presented to promote the reinstatement of that same drug-seeking behavior (i.e., relapse). For example, if the animal receives an injection of the drug in question it will likely begin working on the operant task for which it was previously reinforced.[6] The stimulus may be the drug itself, the visual stimulus that was initially paired with the drug intake, or a stressor such as an acoustic startle or foot shock.[15] However, the stimulus used to trigger reinstatement can influence the psychological processes involved.[17][18]

Neuroimaging

[edit]
A transverse segment fMRI scan showing activated regions in orange.

Neuroimaging has contributed to the identification of the neural components involved in drug reinstatement as well as drug-taking determinants such as the pharmokinetics, neurochemistry, and dose of the drug. The neuroimaging techniques used in non-human primates include positron emission tomography (PET), which uses radiolabeled ligand tracers to measure neurochemistry in vivo and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).[3] Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is widely used in human subjects because it has much higher resolution and eliminates exposure to radiation.[14]

Limitations

[edit]

Although the reinstatement protocols are used frequently in laboratory settings there are some limitations to the validity of the procedures as a model of craving and relapse in humans. The primary limiting factor is that in humans, relapse rarely follows the strict extinction of drug-seeking behavior. Additionally, human self-reports show that drug-associated stimuli play a lesser role in craving in humans than in the laboratory models. The validity of the model can be examined in three ways: formal equivalence, correlational models, and functional equivalence. There is moderate formal equivalence, or face validity, meaning that the model somewhat resembles relapse as it occurs outside of the laboratory setting; however, there is little face validity for the procedures as a model of craving. The predictive validity, which is assessed by correlational models, has yet to be determined for the procedures. There is sound functional equivalence for the model, which suggests that relapse in the laboratory is reasonably similar to that in nature. Further research into other manipulations or reinforcements that could limit drug-taking in non-human primates would be extremely beneficial to the field.[19]

Differences between sexes

[edit]

There exists a higher rate of relapse, shorter periods of abstinence, and higher responsiveness to drug-related cues in women as compared to men. One study suggests that the ovarian hormones, estradiol and progesterone, that exist in females at fluctuating levels throughout the menstrual cycle (or estrous cycle in rodents), play a significant role in drug-primed relapse. There is a marked increase in progesterone levels and a decrease in estradiol levels during the luteal phase. Anxiety, irritability, and depression, three symptoms of both withdrawal and the human menstrual cycle, are most severe in the luteal phase. Symptoms of withdrawal not associated with the cycle, such as hunger, are also enhanced during the luteal phase, which suggests the role of estradiol and progesterone in enhancing symptoms above the naturally occurring level of the menstrual cycle. The symptoms of craving also increase during the luteal phase in humans (it is important to note that the opposite result occurs in female subjects with cocaine addiction suggesting that cyclic changes may be specific for different addictive substances). Further, the drug-primed response is decreased during the luteal phase suggesting a time in the cycle during which the urge to continue use may be reduced. These findings implicate a cyclic, hormone-based timing for quitting an addictive substance and preparing for magnified symptoms of withdrawal or susceptibility to relapse.[20][21]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Relapse

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Relapse refers to the recurrence of of a or condition after a period of apparent improvement or remission. In medical contexts, it commonly describes the re-emergence of illness following partial recovery, such as in cancer or chronic diseases, where treatment has temporarily controlled but not eradicated the underlying . The term also encompasses a return to maladaptive behaviors, particularly in substance use disorders, where an individual resumes drug or alcohol consumption after a phase of or reduced use. In broader and psychological frameworks, relapse is distinguished from a mere lapse—a brief, isolated slip—by its sustained nature, often indicating a setback that may require reevaluation of treatment strategies. For instance, in recovery, relapse rates can be high, with studies showing that up to 40-60% of individuals experience at least one relapse within the first year of , influenced by factors like stress, environmental cues, and inadequate mechanisms. Prevention efforts typically involve cognitive-behavioral techniques, such as identifying high-risk situations and building relapse prevention plans, which emphasize long-term skill development over short-term alone. Relapse is not viewed as failure but as a common part of the recovery process in chronic conditions, underscoring the need for ongoing support and adaptive interventions. In diseases like multiple myeloma, specific criteria define relapse, including measurable increases in biomarkers or new symptoms, guiding clinical decisions on resuming therapy. Overall, understanding relapse informs holistic treatment approaches, promoting resilience and sustained health management across medical and behavioral domains.

Definition and Overview

Core Definition

In the context of addiction recovery, relapse refers to the resumption of substance use or addictive behaviors following a period of or significant reduction in such behaviors. This phenomenon is not merely an isolated incident but a multifaceted process involving cognitive, emotional, and behavioral elements that can lead to a return to pre-recovery patterns of use. Relapse is distinguished from a lapse, which involves a brief, isolated of use without progression to sustained patterns, whereas a full relapse entails a more prolonged and uncontrolled return to addictive behaviors. It also differs from withdrawal, which encompasses physiological symptoms occurring upon cessation of use, and from craving, which is an intense urge without actual consumption. The term's historical roots trace back to the , when researchers G. Alan Marlatt and Judith Gordon developed the relapse prevention model, framing relapse as a predictable response to high-risk situations rather than a failing. Epidemiological data indicate that relapse rates for substance use disorders range from 40% to 60% within the first year after treatment, comparable to recidivism rates in other chronic conditions like or . This process often unfolds through identifiable stages, such as emotional, mental, and physical precursors leading to the act of use.

Stages of Relapse

The stages of relapse in recovery represent a progressive, dynamic process that unfolds over time, often as part of the broader cycle of where periods of alternate with returns to substance use. This model, originally detailed in an 11-phase framework and commonly distilled into three main stages—emotional, mental, and physical—emphasizes that relapse is not a sudden event but a gradual buildup of internal dysfunction that can be recognized before actual use occurs. The stages interconnect sequentially, with unresolved issues from earlier phases increasing vulnerability to later ones, though progression is not inevitable and depends on individual factors within the cycle. Emotional relapse is the initial stage, characterized by emotional and behavioral changes that do not yet involve conscious thoughts of using but erode and recovery foundations. Key indicators include bottling up feelings, , irregular attendance at support meetings, focusing excessively on others' problems rather than one's own, and neglecting such as balanced eating or adequate sleep—often summarized by the HALT (hungry, angry, lonely, tired). plays a central role, as individuals may dismiss these signs as unrelated to their recovery. This stage typically builds gradually over weeks or even months, setting the groundwork for further without immediate awareness of the risk. Mental relapse follows as an internal tug-of-war emerges, where thoughts of using substances intensify and conflict with commitments to . Indicators encompass cravings for the substance, glamorizing or nostalgically recalling past use, minimizing the negative consequences of , bargaining with oneself (e.g., rationalizing a "one-time" use), lying to cover growing urges, actively seeking opportunities to relapse, and planning the logistics of use. As resistance weakens, these thoughts become more frequent, often triggered by unresolved emotional distress from the prior stage. Unlike emotional relapse, this phase can develop over days to weeks, marking a critical transition point in the cycle where cognitive distortions amplify the pull toward physical action. Physical relapse culminates in the actual resumption of substance use, often starting as a lapse—a single instance of use—that can rapidly escalate to full, uncontrolled relapse if not addressed. Key indicators include the behavioral act of obtaining and consuming the substance, frequently in secretive or high-risk settings to avoid detection. In this stage, neurobiological factors such as surges reinforce the behavior, contributing to immediate gratification and potential loss of control within the addiction cycle. The physical stage typically occurs abruptly, sometimes within hours of mental planning, contrasting the slower buildup of preceding phases and highlighting how earlier stages feed into acute breakdowns in recovery.

Neurobiological Basis

Dopamine Dysregulation

Dopamine dysregulation plays a pivotal role in relapse vulnerability within addiction, primarily through alterations in the mesolimbic reward pathway. This pathway, originating from neurons in the (VTA) and projecting to the (NAc) in the ventral , is hyperactivated during craving states, leading to compulsive drug-seeking behaviors. Hyperactivity in the NAc, characterized by excessive release in response to drug cues, reinforces the of substances and diminishes sensitivity to natural rewards, thereby increasing the propensity for relapse. A key of this dysregulation is the reduced availability of D2 receptors in the , which is consistently observed across various substance use disorders and correlates with heightened relapse risk. Low D2 receptor availability, often approximately 20% lower than in non-addicted individuals, impairs the brain's ability to process rewards effectively, resulting in a hypofrontality that favors impulsive choices and reduced inhibition of drug-seeking. This reduction in D2 binding potential has been shown to predict poorer treatment outcomes and higher rates of relapse, as individuals with lower availability exhibit blunted responses to non-drug stimuli, perpetuating a cycle of vulnerability. Human (PET) imaging studies further elucidate this process by demonstrating surges in striatal during exposure to relapse cues. For instance, in cocaine-dependent individuals, drug-related cues elicit significant increases in levels in the dorsal striatum, typically around 10-20%, which directly correlate with subjective craving intensity and predict subsequent drug preference. These phasic elevations in the NAc and surrounding striatal regions amplify the incentive value of cues, facilitating reinstatement of drug use even after prolonged . Genetic factors, particularly variants in the DRD2 gene, contribute substantially to this dysregulation by influencing D2 receptor density and function. The Taq1A polymorphism (rs1800497) in the DRD2 gene is associated with lower striatal D2 receptor availability, which heightens susceptibility to and elevates relapse rates; for example, a pilot study found carriers of the A1 had an 89% relapse rate compared to 53% in non-carriers (odds ratio = 7.1) in . These variants disrupt normal signaling, exacerbating reward deficits and cue reactivity, thus serving as heritable contributors to relapse proneness.

Other Neurochemical Factors

Glutamate plays a critical role in cue-induced reinstatement of drug-seeking , a key mechanism underlying relapse in . Hyperactivity of s in regions such as the and facilitates changes, including long-term potentiation (LTP), which strengthens maladaptive associations between drug cues and reward. This glutamate-driven plasticity is evident in models of and , where elevated extracellular glutamate levels during cue exposure promote reinstatement by enhancing excitatory transmission in cortico-striatal circuits. For instance, up-regulation of subunits GluN2A and GluN2B in the accumbens has been shown to mediate rapid synaptic potentiation that sustains cue-induced relapse vulnerability. These processes interact briefly with dopamine-glutamate in reward pathways, amplifying reinstatement signals. Serotonin and norepinephrine contribute to relapse through their roles in mood regulation and stress responses, with deficits heightening and in . Serotonin (5-HT) system dysfunction, particularly involving 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors, impairs and increases cue reactivity, thereby elevating relapse risk in cocaine-dependent individuals. Low serotonin levels are associated with heightened , a core predictor of compulsive drug-seeking and poor treatment outcomes. Similarly, norepinephrine dysregulation in the and extended amygdala circuits exacerbates stress-induced negative affect, driving reinstatement via enhanced arousal and reduced prefrontal regulation during . Deficits in these monoamines collectively promote impulsive under stress, linking mood instability to sustained vulnerability. The modulates relapse by influencing reward processing and cue reactivity, primarily through CB1 receptors in mesolimbic pathways. Endocannabinoids such as and regulate inhibitory tone on release, and their dysregulation during withdrawal heightens vulnerability to environmental triggers. Antagonism of CB1 receptors, as demonstrated by (SR141716), effectively attenuates cue-induced reinstatement of seeking behaviors for , , and alcohol by reducing glutamatergic excitation in the and . This intervention diminishes the motivational salience of drug cues, highlighting the system's therapeutic potential in curbing relapse propensity. Recent research as of 2025 has highlighted epigenetic mechanisms contributing to relapse vulnerability. For instance, the enzyme 5 (HDAC5) plays a critical role in regulating in reward circuits, influencing susceptibility to drug-seeking reinstatement following stress or cues. Dysregulation of HDAC5 has been linked to persistent neuroadaptations that predict relapse in animal models of . Interactions between these neurochemical systems and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis further exacerbate relapse, as elevations during stress disrupt balanced in reward and stress circuits. Acute stress activates the HPA axis, leading to surges that enhance glutamate and norepinephrine release while suppressing serotonin signaling, thereby intensifying craving and impulsive responses. In abstinent individuals, dysregulated responses—often blunted or hyperreactive—correlate with increased reinstatement to drug cues or stressors, amplifying neurochemical imbalances that sustain cycles. This HPA-mediated crosstalk underscores how stress hormones potentiate vulnerabilities in glutamate, monoamine, and endocannabinoid systems, promoting relapse in vulnerable populations.

Risk Factors

Biological Vulnerabilities

Biological vulnerabilities to relapse in substance use disorders stem primarily from genetic predispositions that influence susceptibility to and its persistence. Twin and family studies have established that the of substance use disorders, including vulnerability to relapse, ranges from 40% to 60%, indicating a substantial genetic contribution to the risk of returning to substance use after . This genetic liability is polygenic, involving multiple variants that heighten and reward sensitivity, thereby increasing the likelihood of relapse under cue exposure or stress. For instance, variations in genes, such as DRD2, have been linked to altered reward processing that may exacerbate relapse risk, though detailed neurochemical mechanisms are addressed elsewhere. Comorbid psychiatric conditions, particularly attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other disorders like depression or anxiety, further amplify biological relapse vulnerability through shared genetic and neurodevelopmental pathways. Individuals with ADHD face a two- to four-fold increased risk of developing s, with untreated symptoms leading to heightened and poor executive function that predict higher relapse rates post-treatment. These comorbidities share overlapping genetic factors, accounting for 40-60% of the variance in risk, and involve dysregulated circuits in the and reward pathways that impair self-regulation and increase craving intensity. For example, adolescents with ADHD and co-occurring exhibit elevated odds of relapse due to these intertwined biological underpinnings. Physiological factors, such as age-related brain maturation, represent another key biological vulnerability, with adolescents showing heightened relapse risk owing to an immature . The , responsible for impulse control and decision-making, does not fully mature until the mid-20s, creating a developmental mismatch where the limbic develops earlier and drives risk-taking behaviors. This immaturity contributes to relapse in adolescent treatment, as incomplete neural pruning and myelination reduce the ability to inhibit drug-seeking responses. Heavy substance exposure during this period can exacerbate prefrontal deficits, perpetuating a cycle of vulnerability. Endocrine influences, including elevated testosterone levels, correlate with increased impulsive behaviors that heighten relapse propensity in substance use disorders. Higher baseline testosterone has been associated with greater and risk-taking, which in turn elevate the likelihood of relapse by impairing during . In males, this hormonal profile can intensify reward-driven responses to substance cues, contributing to poorer treatment outcomes and recurrent use. These effects underscore testosterone's role as a modulator of biological , particularly in contexts of high-stress or cue-induced relapse scenarios.

Psychosocial Influences

Psychosocial influences play a significant role in the vulnerability to relapse among individuals recovering from substance use disorders, encompassing social, environmental, and psychological factors that exacerbate and undermine recovery efforts. Lower , often linked to social hierarchy disadvantages, correlates with elevated relapse risks through mechanisms of persistent strain. For instance, individuals in lower social strata experience heightened , which disrupts abilities and increases susceptibility to substance-seeking behaviors due to accumulated economic and social pressures. This may interact with neurochemical pathways, such as heightened responses, briefly amplifying relapse propensity as noted in foundational stress-addiction models. Psychological factors, including low self-efficacy and unresolved trauma, further heighten relapse vulnerability by impairing an individual's confidence in maintaining abstinence and processing past adversities. Low self-efficacy—defined as diminished belief in one's ability to resist substance use—strongly predicts relapse episodes, with longitudinal studies showing that decreases in daily self-efficacy ratings precede full-blown returns to use in alcohol and drug recovery contexts. Similarly, unresolved trauma, such as from childhood adversity or interpersonal violence, fosters emotional dysregulation and co-occurring conditions like PTSD, which increase the odds of relapse by serving as an unaddressed emotional trigger that erodes resilience during recovery. These elements underscore the need for integrated psychological interventions to bolster self-perception and trauma resolution. Environmental influences in recovery settings, including ease of access to substances and , create ongoing situational risks that propel relapse by normalizing or facilitating use. Proximity to substances in familiar environments reactivates learned associations, significantly reinstating seeking behaviors even after extinction training, as demonstrated in controlled studies where contextual cues alone increase relapse rates in animal models translated to parallels. within social networks, particularly from non-recovering associates, exerts subtle or overt influences that challenge , with recovery-focused research highlighting how unsupportive peer dynamics contribute to reported relapse incidents in community-based programs. Cultural variations amplify these psychosocial risks through stigma, which varies across communities and intensifies stress in marginalized groups. In cultures with high stigma toward substance use disorders, affected individuals face and , elevating psychosocial stress and reducing treatment engagement, thereby increasing relapse in stigmatized populations compared to low-stigma settings. For example, in certain ethnic or religious communities where is viewed as moral failing, this stigma perpetuates isolation and chronic distress, hindering recovery networks and fostering a cycle of vulnerability.

Triggers and Precipitants

Internal Triggers

Internal triggers in relapse refer to self-generated psychological and physiological states that heighten to substance use by prompting urges or justifications for resumption. Negative emotional states, such as anxiety, , , and , are among the most potent internal precipitants, often leading individuals to rationalize substance use as a means of emotional relief. For instance, has identified and as reported relapse determinants in 29% of cases among men treated for alcohol addiction, while and feelings of uselessness accounted for 10%. These emotions can distort , fostering thoughts that substance use will alleviate discomfort, thereby escalating risk during periods of low mood or . Cognitive distortions further amplify internal triggers by warping perceptions of risk and , facilitating rationalizations that undermine . Common distortions include all-or-nothing thinking, where individuals view a single lapse as total failure, and minimizing consequences, such as downplaying the harm of "just one use" despite known outcomes. In the relapse prevention model, these manifest as permission-giving beliefs or apparent efficacy cognitions, where distorted automatic thoughts about the benefits of use outweigh perceived costs, gradually eroding resolve. Studies emphasize that such distortions contribute to impaired control in , not through overwhelming compulsions but via unreliable self-regulation over biased evaluations of substance effects. Physiological cues, including , serve as internal amplifiers of urges by impairing emotional regulation and heightening sensitivity to cravings. Disrupted , such as reduced , has been shown to predict relapse in alcohol use disorder, with early laboratory studies linking low sleep quality to increased drinking resumption. Clinical examples like the HALT framework—hungry, angry, lonely, tired—highlight how basic physiological imbalances, particularly tiredness from deficits, interact with emotional states to elevate relapse risk, as noted in recovery protocols derived from cognitive-behavioral approaches. Internal triggers like these often intensify during the emotional stage of relapse, where unaddressed affective and somatic discomfort builds progressively.

External Triggers

External triggers for relapse in substance use disorders encompass situational and environmental factors that precipitate renewed use, often beyond the individual's immediate control. These precipitants activate conditioned responses through prior associations with substance use, potentially eliciting cravings that lead to relapse. Research indicates that such triggers contribute significantly to the high rates of relapse observed in recovery, with environmental and social elements playing key roles in disrupting abstinence. Social cues, particularly exposure to peers who use substances, serve as potent precipitants by reinforcing learned behaviors and normalizing use. For instance, interactions with individuals actively using drugs can facilitate drug-seeking behaviors, as demonstrated in animal models where social interaction with a relapsed partner increased self-administration and in rats. Similarly, celebrations involving substances, such as gatherings or social events where alcohol or drugs are central, heighten relapse risk due to their association with past use patterns; studies have noted increased substance-related admissions during periods linked to these festive contexts. These can evoke responses similar to those in cue reactivity paradigms discussed in . Environmental contexts, including returning to high-risk locations after treatment, strongly influence relapse by reactivating contextual memories tied to prior substance use. Places where pharmacological effects of substances were previously experienced, such as former drinking venues, become potent triggers for renewed seeking in abstinent individuals, as evidenced by human laboratory studies showing amplified cue reactivity and drug-seeking in drug-associated settings. Post-treatment relocation to such environments has been linked to higher relapse rates, underscoring the importance of contextual avoidance in recovery planning. Acute stressors like job loss or relationship conflicts act as immediate precipitants by overwhelming resources and prompting substance use as a maladaptive response. is associated with elevated substance use and relapse vulnerability, with meta-analyses revealing significantly higher rates of substance use disorders among the unemployed compared to employed individuals. Interpersonal conflicts, including relationship disputes, further exacerbate this risk through mechanisms, where rejection sensitivity and interpersonal tension predict relapse in addicted populations. Media and advertising influences contribute to relapse by presenting substance cues that trigger cravings outside conscious awareness. Exposure to promotional content depicting substance use can elicit cue reactivity predictive of relapse, with systematic reviews confirming that drug cues in various formats, including marketing, play a significant role in subsequent use outcomes. In recent years, social media platforms have emerged as particularly potent triggers, where algorithm-driven content glamorizing substance use or featuring peer endorsements can rapidly evoke cravings and increase relapse risk, especially among younger individuals in recovery.

Prevention Strategies

Relapse Prevention Model

The Relapse Prevention (RP) model, developed by G. Alan Marlatt and Judith R. Gordon in 1985, is a cognitive-behavioral framework designed to help individuals with addictive behaviors anticipate, identify, and manage high-risk situations that may lead to relapse. The model conceptualizes relapse not as a singular event but as a dynamic process involving immediate determinants—such as exposure to high-risk situations and the availability of effective coping skills—and covert antecedents, including underlying lifestyle imbalances and cognitive distortions. Common high-risk situations, such as negative emotional states (accounting for over 50% of relapses when combined with conflicts) and social pressures (over 20%), include frustration or anxiety, interpersonal conflicts, social pressures to use substances, and exposure to cues associated with prior use. Effective coping responses, encompassing both behavioral strategies (e.g., avoiding triggers) and cognitive techniques (e.g., positive self-talk), are emphasized as key to building and averting lapses from escalating into full relapses. Core components of the model include , lifestyle balance, and balanced to foster long-term maintenance of or . involves tracking thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to recognize early of vulnerability, while lifestyle balance addresses broader imbalances such as inadequate or overcommitment that may indirectly heighten relapse risk. Balanced encourages evaluating choices in light of their potential to lead to high-risk scenarios, promoting proactive adjustments. A critical element is the concept of apparently irrelevant decisions (AIDs), which are subtle, seemingly innocuous choices—such as altering one's route home to pass a bar or stocking alcohol "for guests"—that cumulatively steer individuals toward high-risk situations without conscious awareness. By inventorying these AIDs, individuals learn to interrupt the chain of events before reaching a point. Empirical support for the RP model is robust, with meta-analyses demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing relapse frequency and severity across addictive behaviors, particularly alcohol use disorders. A seminal meta-analysis by Irvin et al. (1999) reviewed 26 studies involving over 9,500 participants and found an overall effect size of r = 0.14 for substance use reduction, with stronger effects for alcohol (r = 0.37), indicating moderate improvements in outcomes and relapse management compared to no treatment or alternative interventions. Adherence to the model has been associated with reduced relapse frequency and severity in follow-up studies, particularly when integrated into comprehensive treatment plans, though benefits often emerge more prominently in longer-term assessments (e.g., 12 months post-treatment). These findings underscore the model's utility in enhancing coping skills and self-regulation, contributing to sustained behavioral change. While primarily developed for addictive behaviors, the RP model has been adapted for managing relapse in other chronic conditions, such as diabetes, by emphasizing lifestyle balance.

Cognitive Behavioral Interventions

Cognitive behavioral interventions for relapse in substance use disorders emphasize practical strategies to disrupt the cycle of craving and use by targeting thoughts, behaviors, and environmental cues. These methods, rooted in evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), equip individuals with tools to recognize and manage high-risk situations effectively. Core techniques include urge surfing, a mindfulness-informed practice where individuals observe cravings as temporary waves that rise, peak, and subside, fostering tolerance without acting on the impulse; this approach reduces perceived urge intensity and promotes emotional regulation. Cognitive restructuring involves identifying maladaptive thoughts—such as minimizing risks or catastrophizing abstinence—and replacing them with balanced, realistic alternatives to prevent escalation toward relapse. Complementing these, stimulus control strategies modify the environment to limit exposure to triggers, such as removing drug paraphernalia or avoiding high-risk social settings, thereby decreasing automatic responses to cues. Skills training enhances these techniques through structured practice, including high-risk scenarios like social pressures or emotional distress to build refusal skills and alternative coping responses, increasing in real-world application. CBT interventions are delivered in both group and individual formats, with group sessions leveraging for shared learning and accountability; meta-analyses show comparable efficacy across formats, with small to moderate effects on abstinence outcomes. Modern adaptations integrate into traditional CBT, particularly in mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) programs tailored for addictions like alcohol and opioids, where techniques such as urge surfing are combined with to improve awareness and reduce relapse rates by up to 30% compared to standard CBT alone. These tailored approaches address specific substance vulnerabilities, enhancing long-term recovery outcomes.

Treatment Approaches

Pharmacological Options

, an antagonist, is widely used to mitigate relapse in opioid and alcohol use disorders by competitively binding to mu- receptors, thereby blocking the rewarding effects of these substances and reducing cravings. This mechanism attenuates the release associated with consumption, promoting in clinical settings. For instance, extended-release formulations have demonstrated efficacy in maintaining opioid , with studies showing reduced relapse rates over 24 weeks compared to . Acamprosate, approved for alcohol dependence, functions as an NMDA receptor modulator that stabilizes glutamatergic neurotransmission, counteracting the hyperexcitability during protracted withdrawal and thereby lowering relapse risk. By normalizing glutamate levels in the brain, it helps sustain abstinence post-detoxification, with meta-analyses indicating a modest but significant increase in continuous abstinence rates over six months. Its amino acid-like structure contributes to minimal abuse potential, making it suitable for long-term use. Varenicline, a at the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, aids in relapse prevention by partially stimulating these receptors to alleviate withdrawal symptoms while blocking full binding, which diminishes the satisfaction from and curbs cravings. This dual action results in approximately half the release of , providing without reinforcement. Clinical trials have reported rates of up to 33% at one year, outperforming and other aids. As of 2025, derivatives represent promising emerging pharmacological options for broad-spectrum relapse prevention across substance use disorders, leveraging promotion via GDNF and BDNF upregulation without 's hallucinogenic or cardiotoxic effects. For example, (18-MC), an analog targeting α3β4 nicotinic receptors, has shown in preclinical models a reduction in and self-administration, with a completed Phase I trial in 2022 confirming safety and tolerability up to therapeutic doses. Similarly, , a non-hallucinogenic -inspired compound, attenuates alcohol and heroin-seeking behaviors in by promoting , though it remains in as of November 2025, with a Phase 1 trial planned by Delix Therapeutics. Broader research momentum, including Texas's June 2025 $50 million funding for clinical trials in , PTSD, and , supports exploration of such derivatives. These derivatives aim to address multiple pathways, with preclinical outcomes suggesting potential for single-dose interventions to extend periods.

Contingency Management Techniques

Contingency management (CM) techniques draw on the principles of , which posits that behaviors can be modified through systematic of desired actions while withholding rewards for undesired ones. In treatment, this translates to providing positive reinforcers—such as vouchers, cash equivalents, or prizes—for verified from substances, typically confirmed via urine toxicology screens or other objective tests. These rewards aim to increase the salience of abstinence over use by associating it with immediate, tangible benefits, thereby disrupting the cycle of relapse driven by habitual substance-seeking behaviors. Implementation protocols for CM emphasize structured, escalating reinforcement schedules to promote sustained . In voucher-based systems, participants receive monetary vouchers redeemable for goods and services, starting at low values (e.g., $2.50 for the first negative test) and increasing progressively (e.g., by $1.25 per consecutive clean test) up to a maximum, with a reset to the initial level following a positive test; this "shaping" procedure encourages longer periods by making prolonged success more rewarding. Prize-based alternatives, often used in resource-limited settings, involve participants drawing from a ("fishbowl") filled with slips representing prizes of varying magnitudes (e.g., $1 to $100 retail items or gift cards), awarded only for negative tests, which introduces an element of chance while maintaining frequency through thrice-weekly testing opportunities. These protocols are typically administered over 12–24 weeks in outpatient clinics, with safeguards like prize logs to ensure accountability. Efficacy evidence from randomized trials and meta-analyses supports CM's role in achieving short-term , particularly in use disorder. For instance, voucher-based CM has initiated in approximately 80% of participants and sustained treatment retention for six months or more in about 60%, outperforming non-contingent reward controls. Broader meta-analyses report moderate effect sizes (Cohen's d ≈ 0.54) for post-treatment across substances, with CM significantly reducing days of use compared to treatment as usual. Ethical considerations surrounding CM center on balancing its proven benefits against potential drawbacks in and equity. While critics argue that external rewards may erode intrinsic drive for , longitudinal studies indicate no sustained loss of internal post-treatment, with gains persisting for up to one year in many cases. Cost-effectiveness analyses highlight CM's value, estimating $300–$600 per client over 12 weeks, which offsets higher healthcare costs through reduced substance-related hospitalizations and improved retention; however, challenges include funding disparities that limit access for underserved populations and the risk of relapse rebound after rewards end, underscoring the need for tapered or combined approaches.

Animal Models

Experimental Protocols

Experimental protocols in animal models of relapse primarily utilize , such as rats and mice, and in controlled addiction paradigms to investigate the mechanisms underlying drug-seeking behavior after . These models typically involve chambers where animals voluntarily self-administer drugs like , , or alcohol, allowing researchers to manipulate variables such as drug dose, extinction periods, and reinstatement triggers in a standardized environment. Non-human primates, including rhesus monkeys, are employed for their closer neuroanatomical similarity to humans, particularly in studies requiring fine motor responses or long-term drug exposure effects. Adherence to ethical guidelines is paramount in these protocols, guided by the 3Rs principles—replacement, reduction, and refinement—updated through 2025 standards by organizations like the American Physiological Society and the to minimize animal distress while maximizing scientific yield. Replacement strategies include computational modeling or assays where feasible, reduction limits animal numbers via for statistical robustness, and refinement incorporates analgesia, enriched housing, and non-invasive monitoring to alleviate suffering during self-administration or imaging procedures. All protocols require institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) approval, ensuring compliance with international standards like those from the . The historical evolution of these protocols traces back to the , when intravenous self-administration paradigms were pioneered in rats (e.g., Weeks, ) to study , marking a shift from passive administration to voluntary intake models that better mimic human . By the and , these evolved to include and reinstatement phases to probe relapse, with models gaining traction for pharmacokinetic accuracy. In the 2010s, emerged as a transformative tool, enabling precise activation or inhibition of relapse-related neural circuits in using light-sensitive proteins, thus bridging behavioral observations with causal neurobiology. In recent years, including as of 2025, genetic tools like CRISPR-Cas9 in mouse models have been increasingly used to dissect relapse circuitry, complementing traditional approaches. These animal protocols demonstrate substantial translational validity to relapse, particularly in cue-reactivity paradigms, where conditioned stimuli elicit drug-seeking responses in both species with high concordance in neural activation patterns. For instance, cue-induced reinstatement mirrors human functional MRI findings of ventral striatal engagement during craving. This alignment supports the use of animal models to inform human interventions, though limitations in cognitive complexity persist.

Key Procedures and Techniques

In animal models of relapse, self-administration serves as a foundational procedure to establish voluntary , typically via intravenous or oral routes to replicate aspects of compulsive use in humans. Intravenous self-administration, first developed by implanting chronic jugular vein catheters in unrestrained rats, allows animals to press a lever or nose-poke to receive discrete infusions of s like or , often paired with light or tone cues to condition seeking behavior. This method progressed from fixed-ratio schedules, where a set number of responses yields a reward, to progressive ratio schedules that exponentially increase the response requirement, culminating in a "breaking point" that quantifies and strength for the . Oral self-administration, commonly applied to or models, involves access to drug-laced solutions in bottles or lickometers, enabling study of patterns over extended periods. Extinction procedures follow acquisition of self-administration to model the reduction of drug-seeking during , consisting of daily sessions where animals are exposed to the operant chamber and drug-associated cues without , leading to a progressive decline in responses such as lever presses. These sessions, often lasting 1-2 hours and spanning 10-21 days, target the inhibition of Pavlovian and associations, with response suppression reflecting context-dependent learning where the absence of overrides prior contingencies. Metrics include the rate of response decay and tests to assess the durability of , highlighting neural adaptations in regions like the infralimbic cortex and . Reinstatement protocols, conducted after stable , probe relapse susceptibility by systematically reintroducing triggers to elicit robust renewal of extinguished responding without subsequent access. Cue-induced reinstatement presents discrete stimuli (e.g., lights or tones) previously paired with infusions, stress-induced variants apply intermittent footshock or to mimic emotional precipitants, and drug-prime reinstatement involves a non-contingent low-dose injection to simulate exposure. Developed as a standardized in the late , this tripartite framework distinguishes relapse mechanisms, with each induction typically limited to short test sessions to avoid relearning. Cue- and prime-induced reinstatement often coincide with phasic surges in the shell. Neuroimaging integrates with these core procedures to visualize dynamic brain changes in real time, enhancing mechanistic insights into relapse circuitry. (fMRI) in , adapted for awake or lightly anesthetized states, measures blood-oxygen-level-dependent signals during cue exposure or early abstinence post-self-administration, revealing hypoactivation in the medial and ventral in cocaine-experienced rats compared to controls. Complementarily, fast-scan employs carbon-fiber microelectrodes implanted in the to detect sub-second release and kinetics during active self-administration sessions or reinstatement tests, calibrated against known standards for precise quantification of phasic transients.

Limitations and Sex Differences

Model Limitations

Animal models of relapse in addiction research, while valuable for elucidating neurobiological mechanisms, face significant limitations in replicating the of human decision-making processes. and other commonly used species lack advanced metacognitive abilities, such as and reflective evaluation of long-term consequences, which are central to human relapse scenarios involving , , and of social repercussions. These models primarily capture instinctive cue-driven behaviors rather than the deliberate, self-regulatory choices observed in humans, leading to an oversimplification of relapse as a purely Pavlovian response. A key species-specific discrepancy arises in learning, where exhibit rapid attenuation of drug-seeking behaviors compared to the protracted, often lifelong vulnerability seen in s. In models, extinction sessions typically achieve significant response suppression within days to weeks, whereas relapse risk persists for months or years post-abstinence due to enduring traces and contextual triggers. This accelerated timeline in animals limits the models' ability to mimic the chronic intermittency of human relapse, where can occur long after initial . Ethical constraints and translational gaps further undermine the applicability of these models, particularly the over-reliance on acute exposure paradigms that fail to replicate the chronic, escalating nature of human . often employ short-term drug administration to induce dependence, ignoring the cumulative neuroadaptations and comorbidities (e.g., psychiatric disorders) that characterize prolonged human use, which complicates direct to clinical settings. Ethical guidelines restrict invasive manipulations in humans, justifying animal use, but this reliance perpetuates a cycle of low , with models prioritizing mechanistic insights over holistic behavioral fidelity. Post-2020 critiques have intensified scrutiny on the of these models, highlighting that many preclinical findings fail to replicate in human clinical trials, often due to discrepancies in environmental complexity and motivational contexts. Reviews emphasize that laboratory-controlled settings in animals strip away real-world variables like and stress variability, reducing the models' relevance to naturalistic relapse triggers. These limitations underscore the need for complementary human-centric approaches to bridge the translational divide.

Sex-Specific Variations

Sex-specific variations in relapse patterns among individuals with substance use disorders reveal distinct biological and behavioral differences between males and females, influencing vulnerability and treatment responses. Biologically, females often exhibit a faster escalation to dependence compared to males, driven by hormonal influences such as , which enhances motivation for psychostimulants and amplifies the rewarding effects of drugs. This hormonal modulation, particularly through , contributes to higher rates of stress-induced relapse in females, where ovarian hormones increase reactivity to stressors and withdrawal experiences, making relapse more likely in response to emotional or environmental pressures. Behaviorally, these differences manifest in relapse triggers, with males showing greater proneness to cue-induced relapse—such as exposure to -associated stimuli—while females are more susceptible to relapse precipitated by emotional or stress-related factors. For instance, women experience heightened stress-induced cravings and anxiety in response to cues and stressors, leading to elevated relapse during periods of hormonal flux. In the , relapse rates among women with substance use histories are notably high, reaching up to 80% within two years after , often linked to stress and disrupted support systems, with particular risk in the first year. Clinical data further underscore these disparities through sex-disaggregated outcomes in treatment efficacy. For alcohol use disorder, pharmacotherapies like demonstrate lower effectiveness in females compared to males, with aggregate analyses of clinical trials showing worse overall treatment outcomes for women, particularly attributable to reduced response to medications. This may stem from sex-specific neurobiological factors, including estrogen's interaction with reward pathways, which can diminish the impact of opioid antagonists in females. Despite these insights, significant gaps persist in research as of 2025, notably the underrepresentation of subjects in models of , which has historically limited understanding of sex-specific mechanisms and hindered the development of tailored interventions. Preclinical studies continue to predominantly feature male s, overlooking variability and female-specific vulnerabilities, thereby perpetuating biases in . Recent 2025 reviews have called for greater integration of sex differences in preclinical and clinical trials to enhance medication development for . Addressing this underrepresentation is essential for advancing equitable and effective relapse prevention strategies.

References

  1. https://www.rxlist.com/relapse/definition.htm
  2. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/relapse
  3. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/relapse-return-to-substance-use
  4. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/treat-drug-relapse
  5. https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/articles/relapse-risks-stats-and-warning-signs
  6. https://www.camh.ca/en/professionals/treating-conditions-and-disorders/fundamentals-of-addiction/f-of-addiction---motivation-and-change/f-of-addiction---preventing-and-managing-relapse
  7. https://adf.org.au/reducing-risk/relapse/
  8. https://www.myeloma.org/treatment/relapse-definition
  9. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/treatment-recovery
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6760427/
  11. https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-597X-6-17
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4553654/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6135092/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4106030/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4540098/
  16. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/24/6583
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2696819/
  18. https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/5/509/128692
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11568783/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2667702/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3280337/
  22. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1220591110
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3110503/
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028390813002992
  25. https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0896-6273%2808%2900530-8
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2657197/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4652927/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2763982/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614705001483
  30. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1080153
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2732004/
  32. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/172883
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352289518300754
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6233301/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3506170/
  36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK571451/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11003516/
  38. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/adolescence-a-high-risk-time-for-substance-use-disorders-2018080714402
  39. https://health.uconn.edu/sbirtacademy/wp-content/uploads/sites/101/2018/03/NIDA-Principles-of-Adolescent-Substance-Use-Disorder-Treatment-A-Research-Based-Guide_2016.pdf
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8824246/
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30264294/
  42. https://www.eajm.org/Content/files/sayilar/228/75-81.pdf
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390821000721
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3179802/
  45. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trauma-and-stress
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2995923/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4023909/
  48. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1295818/full
  49. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/06/cover-opioids-stigma
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740547200001227
  51. https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun01/relapse
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34710509/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4660250/
  54. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/social-media-and-substance-use-what-clinicians-need-to-know
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10450627/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2897895/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10572095/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740547218303623
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5907295/
  60. https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-020-00293-3
  61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534811/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2565602/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6493794/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4014018/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3970823/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3277871/
  67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534846/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4824380/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6464943/
  70. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5c02510
  71. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04292197
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40760185/
  73. https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-ibogaine-treatment-research-law-at-texas-capitol
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11747050/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6095117/
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/contingency-management
  77. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606622/
  78. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/contingency-management-advisory-pep24-06-001.pdf
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740547214000403
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8034391/
  81. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%252Fcps0000121
  82. https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-021-00529-w
  83. https://www.aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/a0cc6fcdb2968be95f60bb1c2c94eb70/contingency-management-sub-treatment.pdf
  84. https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstreams/b9a8e6ad-6ae2-48a5-a516-5d342801dc1e/download
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2890392/
  86. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/21/3996
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3831150/
  88. https://www.physiology.org/career/policy-advocacy/policy-statements/ethical-animal-research--the-3rs-as-guiding-principles
  89. https://www.bps.ac.uk/publishing/pharmacology-matters/november-2024/animal-testing-and-the-3rs-an-introduction
  90. https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines
  91. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.138.3537.143
  92. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2012.00479.x
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5767107/
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01345-6
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6101759/
  96. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.31887/DCNS.2017.19.3/rspanagel
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166432810007229
  98. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-002-1221-x
  99. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-76182-3
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34532508/
  101. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00262/full
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5741108/
  103. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/11/6113
  104. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-29893-005
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6695463/
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166432817307143
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8881537/
  108. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-021-01615-0
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028390821000459
  110. https://www.cell.com/trends/pharmacological-sciences/comments/S0165-6147%2804%2900091-4
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763410000953
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5120656/
  113. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12010041
  114. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.1027310/full
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871615001118
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9235243/
  117. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00074/full
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6294461/
  119. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.70181
  120. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29903-3
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.