Abstracts
Résumé
Le système de justice devient de plus en plus impliqué dans le processus de référence des individus criminalisés vers des programmes de traitement de la toxicomanie. Cette pratique a d’importantes retombées sur les interventions cliniques puisque ces clients sont habituellement considérés comme peu motivés au changement et qu’ils présenteraient des besoins spécifiques qui ne seraient pas facilement satisfaits à travers les approches classiques d’intervention. Ainsi, l’objectif de cet article est, à travers une recension des articles publiés au cours des dix dernières années, de discuter de la disposition au changement des participants à des traitements sous contrainte. L’analyse démontre que la coercition imposée par un ordre judiciaire peut fonctionner comme une source de motivation externe afin d’amener et de retenir les individus en traitement. Par ailleurs, l’engagement et le changement de comportement seraient plutôt reliés au développement de la motivation interne. La « théorie du bas-fond » associe la motivation interne d’un toxicomane à l’accumulation de conséquences négatives reliées à sa consommation de psychotropes. Ainsi, les individus ayant vécu le plus de problèmes seraient davantage prêts au changement et de ce fait, seraient plus susceptibles d’arriver à des résultats positifs à la suite d’un traitement. Cette « théorie » n’est toutefois que partiellement soutenue par les études scientifiques recensées, car si la gravité des problèmes semble reliée à la motivation au changement en début de traitement, celle-ci n’est pas toujours associée à un impact positif du traitement. Nous concluons que les dimensions « externe » et « interne » de la motivation entreraient en intime relation dans le contexte des traitements sous contrainte, et que le processus de développement de la motivation interne à partir des pressions externes exercées sur l’individu mériterait beaucoup plus de recherches.
Mots-clés :
- toxicomanie,
- motivation,
- traitement,
- contrainte,
- coercition
Abstract
The justice system is becoming increasingly involved in the referral process of criminalized individuals to drug treatment programs. This practice has important implications for clinical interventions, as these people are usually considered poorly motivated to change, and present specific needs that are not easily satisfied through conventional intervention approaches. Thus, the aim of this paper is to discuss the readiness to change of coerced treatment participants through a review of articles published over the last ten years. The analysis demonstrates that the coercion generated by the justice system can function as a source of external motivation, in the sense of bringing and retaining individuals into treatment. Moreover, engagement and behavior change are rather related to the development of internal motivation. Some studies associate the internal motivation of an addict with the experience of negative consequences related to the use of psychotropic substances. Therefore, individuals who experience the most problems would be more willing to change and thus more likely to achieve positive results in treatment. This is called «hitting the bottom theory». This «theory» is only partially supported, because if the seriousness of the problems seem related to motivation to change in early treatment, it is not always associated with positive treatment outcomes. We conclude that the «external» and «internal» dimensions of motivation come into intimate relationship in the context of coerced treatment, and the process of developing internal motivation through external pressure requires much more research.
Keywords:
- addiction,
- motivation,
- treatment,
- coercion
Resumen
El sistema judicial está cada vez más involucrado en el proceso de referencia de los individuos con condenas criminales a programas de tratamiento de la toxicomanía. Esta práctica tiene importantes consecuencias en las intervenciones clínicas, porque se considera en general que estos clientes están poco motivados para el cambio y que presentan necesidades específicas que no se pueden satisfacer fácilmente mediante los enfoques clásicos de intervención. A través de una reseña de trabajos publicados durante los últimos diez años, este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar la disposición al cambio que presentan ante los tratamientos los participantes que están bajo orden judicial. El análisis demuestra que la coerción impuesta por una orden judicial puede funcionar como fuente de motivación externa para hacer ir a los individuos al tratamiento y retenerlos. Por otra parte, el compromiso y el cambio de comportamiento estarían más bien relacionados con el desarrollo de la motivación interna. La teoría del «bajo fondo» relaciona la motivación interna de un toxicómano a la acumulación de consecuencias negativas vinculadas a su consumo de psicotrópicos. Las personas que han vivido más problemas serían más propicias al cambio y, de este modo, serían más susceptibles de lograr resultados positivos con un tratamiento. Esta «teoría» es sólo parcialmente sostenida por los estudios científicos analizados, ya que si bien la gravedad de los problemas parece estar relacionada con la motivación para el cambio al principio del tratamiento, la misma no está siempre asociada con un impacto positivo del tratamiento. Nosotros llegamos a la conclusión de que las dimensiones «externa» e «interna» de la motivación estarían en íntima relación en el contexto de los tratamientos impuestos por orden judicial y que el proceso de desarrollo de la motivación interna a partir de presiones externas ejercidas sobre el individuo merecería más investigación...
Palabras clave:
- toxicomanía,
- motivación,
- tratamiento,
- obligación,
- coerción
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Anglin, M.D. (1988). « The efficacy of civil commitment in treating narcotic addiction ». [In C.G., Leukefeld et F.M., Tims, (Eds) : Complusory treatment of drug abuse: research and clinical practice] Rockville : National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph, p. 8-34.
- Anglin, M.D., Brecht, M.L., Maddahian, E. (1989). « Pretreatment characteristics and treatment performance of legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance admissions ». Criminology. 27 (3), p. 537-557.
- Beleko, S. (2002). « The challenge of conducting research in drug treatment court settings ». Substance Use & Misuse. 37 (1), p. 1635-1644.
- Brecht, M-L., Anglin, M.D., Dylan, M. (2005). « Coerced Treatment for Methamphetamine Abuse: Differential Patient Characteristics and Outcomes ». The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 31 (2), p. 337-356.
- Brocato, J., Wagner, E.F. (2008). « Predictors of retention in a alternative-to-prison substance abuse treatment program ». Criminal Justice and Behavior. 35 (1), p. 99-119.
- Brochu, S. (2005). Drogues et criminalité : une relation complexe. Montréal, PUM.
- Brochu, S., Bergeron, J., Landry, M., Germain, M., Schneeberger, P. (2002). « The impact of treatment on criminalised addicts ». Journal of Addictive Diseases. 21 (3), p. 23-41.
- Brochu, S., Cournoyer, L.G., Tremblay, J., Bergeron, J., Brunelle, N., Landry, M. (2006). « Understanding treatment impact on drug-addicted offenders ». Substance Use & Misuse. 41 (14), p. 1937-1949.
- Brochu, S., Guyon, L., Desjardins, L. (1999). « Comparative profiles of addicted adult populations in rehabilitation and correctional services ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 16 (2), p. 173-182.
- Broner, N., Mayrl, D., Landesberg, G. (2005). « Non mandated New York city jail diversion for offenders with alcohol, drug and mental disorders ». The Prison Journal. 85 (1), p. 18-49.
- Burke, A.C., Grégoire, T.K. (2007). « Substance abuse treatment outcomes for coerced and noncoerced clients ». Health and Social Work. 32 (1), p. 7-15.
- Carroll, K.M. (1997). « Enhancing retention in clinical trials of psychosocial treatments: practical strategies ». [In L. Onken, J. Blaine et J. Boren, (Eds) : Beyond the Therapeutic Alliance: Keeping the Drug-Dependent individual in Treatment] Washington, DC : NIDA Research Monograph Series. Government Printing Office, p. 4-24.
- Cosden, M., Basch, J.E., Campos, E., Greenwell, A., Barazani, S., Walker, S. (2006). « Effects of Motivation and Problem Severity on Court-Based Drug Treatment ». Crime & Delinquency. 52 (4), p. 599-618.
- Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behaviour. New York : Plenun Press, 371 p.
- DeLeon, G., Melnick, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., Wexler, H.K. (2000). « Motivation for treatment in a prison-based therapeutic community ». American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 26 (1), p. 33-46.
- DiClemente, C. (2006). Addiction and change: how addictions develop and addicted people recover. New York: The Guilford Press, 318 p.
- DiClemente, C., Schlundt, D., Gemmel, L. (2004). « Readiness and stages of change in addiction treatment ». The American Journal on Addiction. 13 (1), p. 103-119.
- Drieschner, K.H., Lammers, S.M., Van der Staak, C.P. (2004). «Treatment motivation: an attempt of clarification of an ambiguous concept». Clinical Psychology Review. 23 (1), p. 1115-1137.
- Farabee, D., Leukefeld, C. (2001). « Recovery and the criminal justice system ». [In F.M., Tims et C.G., Leukefeld, (Eds.) : Relapse and recovery in addictions] New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, p. 40-59.
- Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., Anglin, M.D. (1998). « The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders ». Federal probation. 62 (1), p. 3-10.
- Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., Cartier, J., Wexler, H., Knight, K., Anglin, M.D. (1999). « Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs ». The Prison Journal. 79 (2), p. 150-162.
- Fiorentine, R., Nakashima, J., Anglin, M.D. (1999). « Client engagement in drug treatment ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 17 (3), p. 199-206.
- Fisher, D. (2003). « Doing good with a vengeance: a critical assessment of the practices, effects and implications of drug treatment courts in North America ». Criminal Justice. 3 (3), p. 227-248.
- Grégoire, T.K., Burke, A.C. (2004). « The relationship of legal coercion to readiness to change among adults with alcohol and other drug problems ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 26 (1), p. 35-41.
- Grella, C.E., Greenwell, L., Prendergast, M., Farabee, D., Hall, E., Cartier, J., Burdon, W. (2007). « Organizational characteristics of drug abuse treatment programs for offenders ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 32 (1), p. 291-300.
- Hartley, R.E., Phillips, R.C. (2001). « Who graduates from drug courts? Correlates of client success ». American Journal of Criminal Justice. 26 (1), p. 107-119.
- Hepburn, J.R., Harvey, A.N. (2007). « The effect of treatment legal sanction on program retention and completion: is that why hey stay in drug court ? ». Crime & Delinquency. 53 (2), p. 255-280.
- Hiller, M., Knight, K., Leukefeld, C., Simpson, D. (2002). « Motivation as a predictor of therapeutic engagement in mandated residential substance abuse treatment ». Criminal Justice and Behavior. 29 (1), p. 56-75.
- Hiller, M.L., Narevic, E., Webster, J.M., Rosen, P.J., Stanton, M., Leukefeld, C., Garrity, T.F., Kayo, R. (2009). « Problem severity and motivation for treatment in incarcerated substance abusers ». Substance Use & Misuse. 44 (1), p. 28-41.
- Hough, M. (2002). « Drug user treatment within a criminal justice context ». Substance Use & Misuse. 37 (8), p. 985-996.
- Joe, G.W., Simpson, D.D., Broome, K.M. (1998). « Effects of readiness for drug abuse treatment on client retention and assessment of process ». Addiction. 93 (8), p. 1177-1190.
- Klag, S., O’Callaghan, F., Creed, P. (2005). « The Use of Legal Coercion in the Treatment of Substance Abusers: An Overview and Critical Analysis of Thirty Years of Research ». Substance Use & Misuse. 40 (12), p. 1777-1795.
- Knight, K., Hiller, M.L., Broome, K.M., Simpson, D.D. (2000). « Legal Pressure, Treatment Readiness, and Engagement in Long-Term Residential Programs ». Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 31 (1), p. 101-115.
- Lang, M.A., Belenko, S. (2000). « Predicting retention in a residential drug treatment alternative to prison program ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 19 (1), p. 145-160.
- Longshore, D., Prendergast, M., Farabee, D. (2004). « Coerced treatment for drug using criminal offenders ». [In P. Bean and T. Nemitz, (Eds) : Drug treatment: what works?] London : Routledge, p.110-122.
- Longshore, D., Teruya, C. (2006). « Treatment motivation in drug users: a theory based analysis ». Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 81 (2), p. 179-188.
- Marlowe, D.B., Kirby, K., Bonieskie, L., Glass, D., Dodds, L., Husband, S. et coll. (1996). « Assessment of coercive and noncoercive pressures to enter drug abuse treatment ». Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 42 (2), p. 77-84.
- Marlowe, D.B., Merikle, E.P., Kirby, K.C., Festinger, D.S., McLellan, A.T. (2001). « Multidimensional assessment of perceived treatment-entry pressures among substance users ». Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 15 (1), p. 97-108.
- Marshall, G.N., Hser, Y. (2002). « Caracteristics of criminal justice and noncriminal justice clients receiving treatment for substance abuse ». Addictive Behaviors. 27 (1), p. 179-192.
- McIntosh, J., Saville, E. (2006). « The challenges associated with drug treatment in prison ». The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice. 53 (3), p. 230-247.
- Melnick, G., De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., Wexler, H.K. (2001). « Treatment process in prison therapeutic communities: motivation, participation, and outcomes ». The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 27 (4), p. 633-650.
- Miller, W. R. (1985). « Motivation for treatment: A review with special emphasis on alcoholism ». Psychological Bulletin. 98, p. 84-107.
- Miller, W. R., Rollnick, S. (2006). L’entretien motivationnel : aider la personne à engager le changement. Paris : Intereditions, 241 p.
- Mugford, R., Weekes, J. (2006). Mandatory and coerced treatment: Fact sheet. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
- Orlando, M., Chan, K.S., Morral., A.R. (2003). « Retention Of Court-referred Youths In Residential Treatment Programs: Client Characteristics And Treatment Process Effects ». The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 29 (2), p. 337-357.
- Perron, B.E., Bright, C.L. (2008). « The influence of legal coercion on dropout from substance abuse treatment: results from a national survey ». Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 92 (1), p. 123-131.
- Perry, A.E., Darwin, Z., Godfrey, C., McDougall, C., Lunn, J. et coll. (2009). « The effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders in the courts, secure establishments and the community: a systematic review ». Substance Use & Misuse. 44 (3), p. 374-400.
- Polcin, D.L. (2001). « Drug and alcohol offenders coerced into treatment: a review of modalities and suggestions for research on social model programs ». Substance Use & Misuse. 36 (5), p. 589-608.
- Polcin, D.L., Weisner, C. (1999). « Factors associated with coercion in entering treatment for alcohol problems ». Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 54 (1), p. 63-68.
- Prendergast, M.L., Farabee, D., Cartier, J., Henkin, S. (2002). « Involuntary treatment in a prison setting: impact on psychosocial change during treatment ». Criminal Justice and Behavior. 29 (1), p. 5-26.
- Rapp, R.C., Li, L., Siegal, H.A., DeLiberty, R.N. (2003). « Demographic and clinical correlates of client motivation among substance abusers ». National Association of Social Workers. 28 (2), p. 107-115.
- Rhodes, M. (2000). « The nature of coercion ». The Journal of Value Inquiry. 34 (1), p. 369-381.
- Roberts, E.A., Contois, M.W., Willis, J.C., Worthington, M.R., Knight, K. (2007). « Assessing offender needs and performance for planning and monitoring criminal justice drug treatment ». Criminal Justice and Behavior. 34 (9), p. 1179-1187.
- Rosen, P.J., Hiller, M.L., Webster, J.M., Staton, M., Leukefel, C. (2004). « Treatment Motivation and Therapeutic Engagement in Prison-Based Substance Use treatment ». Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 36 (3), p. 387-396.
- Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000a). « The darker and brighter sides of human existence: basic psychological needs as a unifying concept ». Psychological Inquiry. 11 (1), p. 319-338.
- Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000b). « Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being ». American Psychologist. 55 (1), p. 68-78.
- Schneeberger, P., Brochu, S. (2000). « Le traitement de la toxicomanie comme alternative à l’incarcération: un sentier rocailleux ». Criminologie. 33 (2), p. 129- 149.
- Schippers, G.M., van der Hurk, A.A., Breteler, M.H.M., Meerkerk, G-J. (1998). « Effectiveness of a Drug-Free Detention Treatment Program in a Dutch Prison ». Substance Use & Misuse. 33 (4), p. 1027-1046.
- Seddon, T. (2007). « Coerced drug treatment in the criminal justice system: conceptual, ethical and criminological issues ». Criminology & Criminal Justice. 7 (3), p. 269-286.
- Shearer, R.A., Myers, L.B., Ogan, G.B. (2005). « Treatment resistance and ethnicity among female offenders in substance abuse treatment programs ». The Prison Journal. 81 (1), p. 55-72.
- Shen, Q., McLellan, A.T., Merril, J.C. (2000). « Client’s perceived need for treatment and its impact in outcome ». Substance Abuse. 21 (1), p. 179-192.
- Sia, T.L., Dansereau, D.F., Czuchry, M.L. (2000). « Treatment readiness training and probationers’ evaluation of substance abuse treatment in a criminal justice setting ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 19 (1), p. 459-467.
- Simpson, D.D., Joe, G.W, Brown, B.S. (1997). « Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) ». Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 11 (1), p. 294-307.
- Stanford, J.S., Arrigo, B.A. (2005). « Lifting the cover on drug courts: evaluation findings and policy concerns ». International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 49 (3), p. 239-259.
- Stevens., A., Berto, D., Heckman, W, Kersch, V., Oeuvray, K. et coll. (2005). « Quasi-compulsory treatment of drug dependent offenders: an international literature review ». Substance Use & Misuse. 40 (3), p. 269-283.
- Sullivan, M.A., Birkmayer, F., Boyarsky, B.K., Frances, R., Fromson, J.A. et coll. (2008). « Uses of coercion in addiction treatment: clinical aspects ». American Journal of Addictions. 17 (1), p. 36-47.
- Sung, H., Belenko, S., Feng, L. (2001). « Treatment compliance in the trajectory of treatment progress among offenders ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 20 (1), p. 153-162.
- Sung, H., Belenko, S., Feng, L., Tabachnick, C. (2004). « Predicting treatment noncompliance among criminal justice-mandated clients: A theoretical and empirical exploration ». Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 26 (1), p. 13-26.
- Szmukler, G., Appelbaum, P.S. (2008). « Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care ». Journal of Mental Health. 17 (3), p. 233-244.
- Vandevelde, S., Palmans, V., Broekaert, E., Rousseau, K., Vanderstraeten, K. (2006). « How do drug-involved incarcerated and recently released offenders and correctional treatment staff perceive treatment? A qualitative study on treatment needs and motivation in Belgian prisons ». Psychology, Crime and Law. 12 (3), p. 287-305.
- Warner, T.D., Kramer, J.H. (2009). « Closing the revolving door? Substance abuse treatment as an alternative to traditional sentencing for drug-dependent offenders ». Criminal Justice and Behavior. 36 (1), p. 89-109.
- Webster, J.M., Rosen, P.J., Krietemeyre, J., Mateyoke-Scrivner, A., Stanton-Tindall, M., Leukefeld, C. (2006). « Gender, mental health and treatment motivation in a drug court setting ». Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 38 (4), p. 441-448.
- Whiteacre, K.W. (2007). « Strange bedfellows: the tensions of coerced treatment ». Criminal Justice Policy Review. 18 (3), p. 260-273.
- Young, D. (2002). « Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment ». Criminal Justice and Behavior. 29 (1), p. 27-55.
- Young, D., Belenko, S. (2002). « Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment». Journal of Drug Issues. 32 (1), p. 297-328.