See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331340387

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy for Families: When a

Loved One Struggles With Substance Abuse

Article in Journal of Systemic Therapies · September 2018

DOI: 10.1521/jsyt.2018.37.3.15

CITATIONS READS

5 7,091

4 authors, including:

Natira Mullet Sara Jordan

North Dakota State University University of Nevada, Las Vegas
22 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cameron Brown
Texas Tech University
25 PUBLICATIONS 412 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: A Solution to Dialogues Between Members of Differing Generational Cohorts View
project

"We're Just Talking": Constructing a New Trend in Emerging Adult Romantic Relationship Formation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sara Jordan on 08 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Systemic Therapies, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2018, pp. 15–28

SOLUTION-FOCUSED BRIEF THERAPY

FOR FAMILIES: WHEN A LOVED ONE
STRUGGLES WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE
NATIRA MULLET
MAZIE ZIELINSKI
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
SARA SMOCK JORDAN
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
CAMERON C. BROWN
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Despite efforts and resources being aimed at reducing rates, substance use
within the United States continues to increase. Brief therapeutic approaches
are cost effective and just as effective if not better than many widely utilized
approaches to substance abuse. Previous literature has suggested that not
only can an individual’s substance abuse greatly affect other members of
his or her family system, but these same members can also play a part in the
recovery of the abuser. Despite literature illustrating the separate effective-
ness of brief therapy and incorporating family members on substance abuse,
little literature has integrated brief therapy and familial treatment where
substance abuse is present. This article provides a map to recovery using
solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) for families affected by substance
abuse. Literature regarding substance use, brief therapy, and family therapy
is reviewed. The suggested SFBT approach is then outlined and applied
through a fictional clinical example.

Keywords: solution-focused brief therapy, families, substance abuse

treatment

Address correspondence to Natira Mullet, Couple, Marriage, and Family Therapy Program, College of
Human Sciences, Texas Tech University, 1301 Akron Ave., Room 271, Lubbock, TX 79409. E-mail:
natira.staats@ttu.edu

© 2018 JST Institute LLC

15

G4720.indd 15 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 16 Mullet et al.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are diagnosed based on pathological patterns

of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological symptoms related to the use of
a substance (American Psychological Association, 2013, p. 483). SUDs are
diagnosed based on 11 criteria, including an increase in the amount of a sub-
stance used over time, an inability to regulate substance use despite multiple
attempts, experiencing cravings, social impairment, and exposure to risky situ-
ations (American Psycho­logical Association, 2013, pp. 483-484). Substance
use has been linked with low socioeconomic status, childhood abuse, stress,
and mental health disorders (Sinnott-Armstrong & Pickard, 2013). There has
been an increase in substance use in recent years. In 2013, it was estimated that
9.4% of, or 24.6 million, Americans 12 years of age and older had used drugs
in the past month, compared to 8.3% of people who reported drug use in the
past month in 2002 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2015).
SUD is not only an individual issue: family members of individuals with
these diagnoses are greatly impacted by the abuse as well. Negative effects are
seen whether the substance user is a parent, spouse, or child. These effects can
be seen through negative changes in a family’s routine, structure, roles, rituals,
communication, social encounters, finances, and even development of domestic
and intimate partner violence (Wegscheider-Cruse & Cruse, 2012). Since these
family members are experiencing intense biopsychosocial stressors themselves
(Orford, Copello, Velleman, & Templeton, 2010), it is vital for whole families
to be involved in treatment. The current article aims to provide a model of sys-
temic treatment for whole families where an SUD is present by offering present
literature about SUDs and families, an overview of solution-focused brief therapy
(SFBT), and how helping professionals could utilize SFBT to systemically treat
SUDs within the family. A case example using SFBT is offered for clarity of
application of the suggested treatment modality.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Families With an SUD Member

Addiction is a multidimensional disease that not only affects the addicted indi-
vidual but his or her family members as well. No matter what familial role the
substance abuser holds (i.e., parent, spouse, sibling, child), family members
are consequently affected in ways related to their own health, safety, and rela-
tionships (Wegscheider-Cruse & Cruse, 2012). Specifically, some research has
indicated that family members of loved ones with an SUD have decreased per-

G4720.indd 16 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 SFBT and Substance Abuse 17

sonal health and increased costs of health care (Weisner, Parthasarathy, Moore,
& Mertens, 2010). Further, the probability of family members forming their
own substance abuse and/or mental illness is also increased (Ray, Mertens, &
Weisner, 2007; Wegscheider-Cruse & Cruse, 2012). Family and other system
members are not only affected by an SUD but are also considered to be key
factors in successful treatment.

Systemic Treatment for SUD Families

The substance use literature has brought to light the importance of the entire
family seeking treatment due to the complexities of SUD diagnoses. While the
family has a central role in the treatment of SUDs, it is not utilized to its fullest
capacity (Kaufman & Yoshioka, 2004). In much of the substance use treatment
modalities, family therapy serves to utilize family strengths and resources to
lessen the impact of the substance use. The therapist in this type of treatment is
primarily interested in intervening in familial relationships, as the primary goal
of treatment is to meet the needs of each family member. Current models that
are primarily utilized today are the family disease model, the family systems
model, the cognitive behavioral approach, and multidimensional family therapy
(Kaufman & Yoshioka, 2004). It is still relatively rare for clinicians to fully inte-
grate family therapy into standard substance abuse treatment. However, family
therapy for SUDs has been recommended due to its effectiveness with treating
other mental health issues (Kaufman & Yoshioka, 2004). Systems perspective
is at the core of family therapy, meaning that change—in the direction of the
solution of the problem—in one part of the system will produce change in
other parts. The inclusion of families in the treatment process of an SUD could
be important, as the family may contribute to support and solutions as well as
benefit from treatment themselves since they are affected by the disorder too.
Brief therapy has become an increasingly important modality for individuals
with SUDs. This approach has gained popularity due to its effectiveness and
cost efficiency. Brief interventions can help fill gaps in care, especially for
those who are on waitlists for specialized treatment programs. Generally, this
approach is meant to provide clients with tools and help them address under-
lying problems, two important aspects in the treatment of an SUD. There are
six common elements of brief interventions: feedback, responsibility, advice,
menu, empathy, and self-efficacy (FRAMES). There are also five basic steps
of brief interventions: introducing issues; screening, evaluating, and assessing;
providing feedback; talking about change and setting goals; and summarizing
and reaching closure (Barry, 1999). It is important to understand when it is
appropriate to utilize brief therapies. Some items to consider before choosing

G4720.indd 17 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 18 Mullet et al.

brief therapy include: duration of substance dependence, severity of the is-

sue, previous treatment attempts, client motivation, and coexisting diagnoses
(Barry, 1999).

OVERVIEW OF SFBT

Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) was developed by Steve de Shazer and

Insoo Kim Berg in the 1980s (Bavelas et al., 2013). SFBT is a brief systemic
approach that has been used to treat a variety of presenting issues. Through
co-constructing conversations, therapists listen for exceptions to the client’s
problems and ask goal-setting and future-oriented questions (De Jong & Berg,
2013). The main construct within SFBT is solution building. Solution build-
ing is a unidimensional construct that includes identifying a client’s solutions,
awareness of the exceptions to his or her problems, and hope in the future
(Smock, McCollum, & Stevenson, 2010). In comparison to problem solving,
solution building goes through phases to aid clients in reaching their goals.
De Jong and Berg (2013) best describe the stages as describing the problem,
developing well-formed goals, exploring exceptions, evaluating client progress,
and end-of-session feedback.

The Content: Session Outline

Several authors have published session outlines to guide SFBT practitioners
through the solution-building process (e.g., De Jong & Berg, 2013). A first ses-
sion format usually begins by asking the client a version of the question, “So,
how can I be helpful to you today?” This opening question allows the client to
identify his or her problem. While SFBT therapists do not focus on the prob-
lem, identifying the client’s concern at the beginning of treatment is important
because it offers context for the therapist to help the client pivot into utilizing
a different version of the question: “What would you like to be different as a
result of coming to therapy today?” This allows the client to describe his or her
preferred future. Traditionally, SFBT therapy includes the therapist’s asking a
version of the “miracle question” (Berg & Dolan, 2001; de Shazer & Dolan,
2012) to gain further details and invite the client to focus more on differences
than on the problem.
When working with a couple, family, or group, it is important to compile
an agreed-upon goal. This can be done by putting the common themes of each
member together into one goal. Once a goal is formulated, it is important to ask
each member if that goal fits for him or her. Highlighting exceptions to their

G4720.indd 18 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 SFBT and Substance Abuse 19

problems by asking questions like, “Is there a time when the problem isn’t quite
as bad?” helps the therapist to point out resources that the client possesses to
manage or cope with the problem. Scaling questions can also be used to measure
what the client is doing well or where the client wants to be in the near future.
Taking a break may occur towards the end of the session, when the therapist
may either (1) leave the room to gather feedback from an observing team or
(2) stay and gather strengths from the notes he or she has taken or processes
observed in the session. These strengths could be in a variety of forms, such
as noticing what is going well or what is different about a behavior that may
be contributing to better outcomes.

The Process: Listen, Select, and Build

A shift from teaching SFBT interventions to describing the process of doing
the model began several years ago. In fact, the SFBT treatment manual was
updated in 2013 to better depict what happens in the solution-building process
(Bavelas et al., 2013). In their book Interviewing for Solutions, De Jong and Berg
(2013) developed language to depict the process that occurs in solution-building
conversations. As the therapist follows an SFBT session outline (above), he
or she should be aware of the process the therapist uses in conversation. De
Jong and Berg (2013) describe the process as listen, select, and build. Through
this process, the therapist and client co-construct the client’s preferred future.
It is worth noting that this process occurs very quickly in conversation in the
moment-by-moment utterances exchanged between therapist and client.

Listen. In the listening phase, the therapist carefully waits for opportunities
when the client shares information about exceptions to his or her problems
and/or ideas about his or her preferred future. For example, if a client is talking
about how much he or she fights with a family member and then say their fam-
ily holiday dinner went well, the therapist would listen for a time when things
were better in their relationship. Listening in SFBT is more than just hearing.
In SFBT, listening involves a careful filtering of any piece of content from the
client that provides an opportunity to further develop what he or she wants in life.

Select. Once the therapist finds a hint of opportunity about the client’s pre-
ferred future, the therapist then selects that content. Sometimes the client gives
several possible hints of possibility in one turn or utterance. The SFBT therapist
then chooses the most useful piece to start with in the conversation. For example,
if a client says, “This week has been a bit better. I got along with my father,
did well on a test, and just felt better,” the therapist would select the part that

G4720.indd 19 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 20 Mullet et al.

seems most useful to build on. In this example, the therapist might respond by
saying “You got along better with your father!” By selecting this phrase, the
therapist has highlighted a piece of information that seems most useful to build
upon to develop the preferred future.

Build. The final step is build. Given the previous example, the therapist might
build on, “You got along better with your father!” by then stating, “How did
you do that?” Building happens once a piece of the client’s preferred future
is stated and elaborated. A client might respond with, “I don’t know,” after
which a therapist could respond with, “I wonder what your father would say
was different about this week.” Building in SFBT can happen in several ways,
however the main focus is adding to the piece you selected based on the ­client’s
utterance that leads to a further co-construction of the preferred future.

WHY USE SFBT WITH SUD FAMILIES

Several reasons exist for using SFBT with SUD families. First, SFBT is a sys-
temic approach. Solutions, just like problems, are interactional, often involving
family members, friends, and colleagues. SFBT is systemic because it includes
the important individuals in a person’s life to aid in reaching the preferred future.
One way of building systemic solutions is through the use of relational ques-
tions. Questions such as, “What would Dad notice when you are doing well?”
or “What difference would it make to your daughter if you were sober?” Hav-
ing family members in the session to help co-construct the family’s preferred
future is valuable and useful to both the client’s and the family’s progress. SFBT
family therapy is used with many presenting issues (e.g., Forrester, Copello,
Waissbein, & Pokhrel, 2008; Schade, Torres, & Beyebach, 2011).
Second, SFBT is brief and cost effective. Brief therapy means that the client(s)
issues/needs are addressed promptly (Bavelas et al., 2013). From the first ses-
sion, clients are asked about why they came to therapy and their preferred future.
Since most substance abuse treatment is time limited, using a brief approach
that starts with the clients’ solutions is helpful. In cases where individuals and
families lack financial resources or insurance coverage, a brief approach to
SUDs helps accomplish more progress in a fewer number of sessions. Smock
and colleagues (2008) found that solution-focused group therapy for level one
substance abusers produced lower levels of depression and lower symptom
distress after only six therapy sessions when compared to a psychoeducational
group. Other research has indicated that a solution-focused approach was at
least as effective as other approaches, if not more effective (e.g., Kim, 2008).

G4720.indd 20 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 SFBT and Substance Abuse 21

Thus, SFBT illustrates equal or better outcomes among many clients in fewer
number of sessions, illustrating it is a more cost-effective option.
Third, SFBT is an evidence-based practice for substance abusers. Research
supports the utilization of SFBT in group therapy for those with addiction and
depression (Smock et al., 2008), chronic relapsing (Berg & Reuss, 1997), co-
dependency (Berg & Reuss, 1997), couples’ recovery (Li, Armstrong, Chaim,
Kelly, & Shenfeld, 2007), parents as problem drinkers (Forrester et al., 2008),
and dual diagnoses (Berg & Reuss, 1997). In addition, solution-focused group
therapy (SFGT) was added to SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-Based
Programs and Practices in 2013 (SAMHSA, 2018). Thus, a strong empirical base
exists for using SFBT with substance abusers.

SESSION FORMAT OF SYSTEMIC SFBT

WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE

SFBT is a systemic, brief, and empirically validated approach for substance

abusers and their families. While a great deal has been written on the use of
SFBT with substance abusers, a how to guide for using SFBT with families of
substance-abusing members is lacking. The following is a family SFBT ses-
sion outline that can be used in situations where one member is in inpatient
treatment or in intensive outpatient treatment.

Systemic Case Study

The following fictional case example illustrates how to use SFBT with a family
who has a substance-abusing member. The family consists of the parents Emma
(age 47) and David (age 50), their daughter, Jodi (age16), and son, Brady (age
22). Brady has struggled with alcohol since the age of 16. His parents have
sent him to three inpatient facilities before finding Brady’s current treatment
center, which uses an SFBT systemic approach.
Before their initial session, the therapist met with Brady as part of their SFBT
inpatient treatment program. During their first individual session, the therapist
asked Brady to define his preferred future. Brady stated that he would like to
get along better with his family and be independent as an adult. The therapist
also talked to Brady about their upcoming family session and asked him his
best hopes for that meeting. Brady expressed that a family session where they
weren’t fighting the entire time would be his best hope.
In the first family session, Emma, David, and Jodi arrive on time and join
Brady in the clinical conference room. Only excerpts illustrating the various

G4720.indd 21 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 22 Mullet et al.

parts of an SFBT family session are given. Below is an account of their con-
versation after their introductions:

1. Therapist: Thanks for coming to session today. I’d like to begin by ask-
ing each one of you how I can be helpful to you.
2. David: Well, I guess I’ll start. I wish Brady would get sober once and
for all.
3. Emma: I agree (begins crying). That’s all I have wanted for a long time.
4. Therapist: For Brady to get sober. Yes, I can tell this is very emotional for
you (looking at Emma). It sounds like things have been pretty difficult
for you two.
5. Emma: Yes! You can’t imagine what it’s like to have a son who is always
drunk or high.
6. Therapist: That sounds very difficult. What about for you two, Brady
and Jodi? How I can be helpful to you?
7. Jodi: I just want to go home.
8. Therapist: Go home. Is that a place you feel comfortable?
9. Jodi: Yeah, I just want to go home and hang out in my room.
10. Therapist: Okay, and you, Brady, how I can be helpful to you?
11. Brady: I just want to have a “normal” life.
12. Therapist: Normal? What would a normal life look like?

The opening question of a first session can be worded in several ways and
helps the therapist identify the problem, or problems, that exist within the
family unit. It is important to give every family member a chance to answer
the question, c­ larifying their responses when needed. As you can see from
the first few utterances of the dialogue, the therapist says, “For Brady to get
sober,” in utterance #4, which is selected from utterances #2 and #3. Listen,
select, and build begins from the very beginning of the session. The therapist
immediately listens and selects the best opportunity for building solutions at
this point in the conversation.

13. Therapist: So, what needs to happen here today that would let you know
that our meeting was worth your time?
14. Brady: That my family would get off my back.
15. Therapist: That your family would get off your back.
16. Brady: Yes.
17. Therapist: Okay, so Brady, what would that look like, if your family
would get off your back?
18. Brady: They would leave me alone and let me live my life.

G4720.indd 22 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 SFBT and Substance Abuse 23

19. Therapist: They would let you live your life. What would that look
like?
20. Brady: I wouldn’t be asked constantly if I was sober or not.
21. Therapist: Yeah, okay. Jodi, what do you think needs to happen during
our meeting today for this time to be helpful to you?
22. Jodi: I don’t know. I guess just to be respected by my family.
23. Therapist: Have there been times when your family showed you respect?
24. Jodi: Well, they used to. They used to give me my space and not accuse
me of using drugs.
25. Therapist: So, giving you space is important. What else can they do to
show you respect?
26. Jodi: I guess just listen to me more.
27. Therapist: Okay, and, David, what do you think needs to happen during
our meeting today for this time to be helpful to you?
28. David: If we could all agree to work together through all of this.
29. Therapist: So working together, as a team?
30. David: Yes.
31. Therapist: And you, Emma? What do you think needs to happen during
our meeting today for this time to be helpful to you?
32. Emma: I would agree with David, working together as a team.
33. Therapist: Being a team.
34. Emma: Yeah.
35. Therapist: So, Mom and Dad would like the family to work together as
a team.
36. Emma and David: Yeah (together).
37. Therapist: And Brady, you would like to live your own life. Would this
include being respected by your family?
38. Brady: Yes.
39. Therapist: Okay, and, Jodi, you would like to be respected.
40. Jodi: Yes
41. Therapist: So, working together while respecting each other. Does this
fit for a family goal of where you all would like to be?
42. (Nods from Emma, David, Brady, and Jodi.)

Utterance #13 helps the therapist understand what each member wants and
co-constructs a family goal. The therapist listens, selects, and builds from each
family member to construct the family goal of, “Working together while respect-
ing each other.” Also, if a family member does not provide a preferred future,
or seems “stuck,” the therapist asks another family member, “So, Mom, what
would you notice in your daughter if things were better?”

G4720.indd 23 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 24 Mullet et al.

In this next phase, the therapist asks details to better understand what “work-
ing together while respecting each other” looks like. This can be done in a
variety of ways. Some therapists may ask the miracle question while others
may ask detailed questions about what the goal looks like in everyday life.
In the following dialogue, the therapist will ask future-oriented questions to
gather more details.

43. Therapist: So, I’m curious to hear from each one of you, what would it
look like for each one of you if you were all working together as a team
while being respected?
44. Brady: Well, for me, being respected to live my life is the most important
part.
45. Therapist: It sounds like it. What would that look like if your family
respected you in that way, so that you could live your life? What would
Mom and Dad and Jodi be doing?
46. Brady: Well, my sister would be on my side.
47. Therapist: On your side, what would that look like?
48. Brady: She wouldn’t be ratting me out for using.
49. Therapist: Okay, what would she be doing instead?
50. Brady: Well, she would just let me be, she would just hang out with me
and stop trying to make me look like the “bad kid.”
51. Therapist: Jodi would hang out with you. Have there been times in the
past when you and Jodi hung out together in this way?

In utterance #48, Brady states that “[Jodi] wouldn’t be ratting me out for
using,” as a response. In this situation, the therapist chooses to ask Brady, “What
would she be doing instead?” because Brady’s statement does not include an
element to build on that’s focused on the preferred future.

52. Therapist: David, what would Jodi be doing when your family is working
together as a team while being respected?
53. David: Hmmm. That’s a good question. I think Jodi wouldn’t be as
defensive around us, she would open up more to us.
54. Therapist: Open up more to you. Has Jodi opened up to you in the
past?
55. David: Yeah, but it has been a long time.
56. Therapist: Okay, Jodi, what can your Dad do to make it more likely to
open up to him?
57. Jodi: He can stop being judgmental.
58. Therapist: Judgmental. What would he be doing instead?

G4720.indd 24 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 SFBT and Substance Abuse 25

Family members are used as resourceful assets in the solution-building pro-

cess. The therapist includes family members in discussing what each of them
would be doing, and what would make it more likely for them to do something
different, to arrive closer to their goal. For example, in utterance #52, the
therapist asks David, “What would Jodi be doing when your family is working
together as a team while being respected?” to gather more details. This is an
example of a relational question. David responds by saying, “Hmmm. That’s a
good question. I think Jodi wouldn’t be as defensive around us, she would open
up more to us,” and the therapist selects, “she would open up more to us.” Then,
the therapist builds on that by asking, “Has Jodi opened up to you in the past?”
In the next phase, the therapist asks scaling questions about where they cur-
rently are in relationship to their preferred future. In subsequent sessions, the
therapist can ask scaling questions about their confidence, hope, optimism, or
facets in reaching their preferred future.

59. Therapist: Emma, if 10 stands for working together as a team while being
respected, and 1 is furthest from that, where would you say the family
is on achieving that goal?
60. Emma: Where am I? You mean in getting the family to that goal?
61. Therapist: Yes, where do you think the family is, between 10 and 1, where
10 is working together as a team while being respected?
62. Emma: Well, I guess about a 5.
63. Therapist: A 5. Hmmm. What are you doing at a 5 on this scale?
64. Emma: Well, I still have trouble . . .
65. Therapist: I mean, what are you doing well that puts your family at a 5
on the scale?
66. Emma: I am trying to include Jodi in our conversations with Brady while
he is in treatment.
67. Therapist: Okay, what else are you doing at a 5?

The therapist continues to ask Emma what she is doing at a 5 to reach her
pre­ferred future. The therapist also asks each family member, “So, between now
and the next time that we meet, what would it look like for the family to move
just a point up the scale?” With this question, family members state the next
small progression towards their goal. At this point in the dialogue, the therapist
listens for small differences that would move them closer to their family goal
and builds on gaining more information on the specifics.

68. Therapist: I am now going to gather some of my thoughts to give you

some feedback about our session today (pauses for a few minutes). First of

G4720.indd 25 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 26 Mullet et al.

all, I want to thank you all for coming to meet with me today. I understand
that this is a challenging circumstance with Brady being in inpatient.
Brady, I want to say to you that I really appreciate your willingness to
involve your family. You stated that you want to live your own life, yet
you are open to including your family in that process.
69. Brady: Thanks
70. Therapist: And Jodi, I wanted to thank you for coming today with your
parents. I know at 16 there are other places that you would rather be.
71. Jodi: (Smiles) Yes.
72. Therapist: But you came today, and you contributed to identifying the
need for respect.
73. Therapist: Emma, I know it has been hard having Brady in inpatient. I
can tell you love him very much. You shared that you are trying hard to
include your daughter in this process with Brady, and I commend you
on that.
74. Emma: Thank you for noticing.
75. Therapist: And David. Your role has not been easy either. I admire that
you want your family to be a team through this process. You want a
relationship with your children and that shows.
76. David: (Nods).
77. Therapist: I agree that working together as a team while respecting each
other is going to be hard work, but you are already doing some of this
work. So, between now and the next time we meet, I would like for each
of you to continue doing what works to work together as a team who
respects each other. I would also like you to notice other small things that
are leading to your teamwork that weren’t mentioned today. For Brady,
this can include things you are working on in residential treatment as
well as phone interactions you have with your family.

The therapist gives compliments from what the client has stated that is impor-
tant to him or her (De Jong & Berg, 2013). In addition, De Jong and Berg
(2013) talk about delivering compliments, then a bridge, and then a suggestion.
A bridge links the compliments to the suggestion at the end of a session. The
suggestion is tailored to the family depending on if they perceive a problem
or not, if they see themselves in a solution to the problem, if there are well
formed goals, if clients are motived towards change, and/or if exceptions to
their problems are presented. Based on this dialogue, a goal was identified,
and some exceptions were discussed.
The entire session format depicted above illustrated important principles and
application of SFBT with families where one member of the system has an

G4720.indd 26 2/6/2019 3:02:41 PM

 SFBT and Substance Abuse 27

SUD. Notably, it incorporated all system members as part of the dialogue, using
unique SFBT questioning that focuses on the preferred future and solutions.
This may be particularly challenging for the therapist, as preferred futures and
offered solutions may be drastically different from family member to family
member. Thus, it is vital for the therapist to have intentional SFBT listening
throughout each session to sew together common themes among all family
members in order to build a cohesive preferred future that the entire family can
support. Having all members included and supporting the shared preferred future
will allow the therapist to best facilitate and empower additional solutions, as
it unites strengths from the entire system rather than from just one or a few.
Further, within SFBT family therapy and any other constellation, the focus of
conversation may not be about substance abuse, because SFBT focuses on the
clients’ preferred future. In other words, the solution and the problem are not
always connected.

CONCLUSION

With substance abuse on the rise (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2015), the
present article introduced an additional approach to substance abuse treatment
with intentions to curb these increasing rates. Using traditional SFBT guideposts
paired with knowledge of SUDs and systems, this article offered specific tools
for helping professionals to empower their clients and families by magnifying
individual and collective strengths. We hope this approach will offer additional
tools for clinicians to facilitate efficient, cost-effective, and successful lasting
change for those with a substance use disorder and their families.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Barry, K. L. (1999). Brief interventions and brief therapies for substance abuse: Treatment
Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 34. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment.
Bavelas, J., De Jong, P., Franklin, C., Froerer, A., Gingerich, W., Kim, J., . . . Trepper, T. S.
(2013). Solution focused therapy treatment manual for working with individuals, 2nd
version. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/JGautP.
Berg, I. K., & Dolan, Y. (2001). Tales of solutions: A collection of hope-inspiriting stories.
New York, NY: Norton.
Berg, I. K., & Reuss, N. (1997). Solutions step-by-step: A substance abuse treatment manual.
New York, NY: Norton.

G4720.indd 27 2/6/2019 3:02:42 PM

 28 Mullet et al.

De Jong, P. & Berg, I. K. (2013). Interviewing for solutions. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
de Shazer, S., & Dolan, Y. (2012). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution focused
brief therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Forrester, D., Copello, A., Waissbein, C., & Pokhrel, S. (2008). Evaluation of an intensive
family preservation service for families affected by parental substance misuse. Child
Abuse Review, 17, 410–426.
Kaufman, E. & Yoshioka, M. R. M. (2004). Substance abuse treatment and family therapy:
Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 39. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment.
Kim, J. S. (2008). Examining the effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy: A meta-
analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 107–116.
Li, S., Armstrong, S., Chaim, G., Kelly, C., & Shenfeld, J. (2007). Group and individual
couple treatment for substance abuse clients: A pilot study. American Journal of
Family Therapy, 35, 221–233.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2017, April 24). Trends and statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.drubabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics
Orford, J., Copello, A., Velleman, R., & Templeton, L. (2010). Family members affected by a
close relative’s addiction: The stress-strain-coping-support model. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 17(1), 36–43.
Ray, G. T., Mertens, J. R., & Weisner, C. (2007). The excess medical cost and health problems
of family members of persons diagnosed with alcohol or drug problems. Medical
Care, 45, 116–122.
SAMHSA. (2018, May 18). SAMHSA’s national registry of evidence-based programs and
practices. Retrieved from https://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/landing.asp.
Schade, N., Torres, P., & Beyebach, M. (2011). Cost-efficiency of a brief family intervention
for somatoform patients in primary care. Families, Systems, & Health, 29, 197–205.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Pickard, H. (2013). What is addiction? In K. W. M. Fulford, M.
Davies, R. G. T. Gipps, G. Graham, J. Z. Sadler, G. Stanghellini, & T. Thornton
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of psychiatry (pp. 851–864). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Smock, S. A., McCollum, E., & Stevenson, M. (2010). The development of the solution
focused inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 499–510.
Smock, S. A., Trepper, T. S., Wetchler, J. L., McCollum, E. E., Ray, R., & Pierce, K. (2008).
Solution-focused group therapy for level 1 substance abusers. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 34, 107–120.
Wegscheider-Cruse, S., & Cruse, J. (2012). Understanding codependency: The science
behind it and how to break the cycle. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Weisner, C., Parthasarathy, S., Moore, C., & Mertens, J. R. (2010). Individuals receiving
addiction treatment: Are medical costs of their family members reduced? Addiction,
105, 1226–1234.

G4720.indd
View publication stats28 2/6/2019 3:02:42 PM