Basic HTML Version
918
97
821
26
34
12
26
UI
1431
599
832
30
66
8
12
87
A Controlled Study of a Hypnotic Method in the Treatment of Alcoholism
29
Table 2.
Contacts with the clinic and number of sick leave days during the observation period: total
valuesfor the groups
Group H
Group N
(n=36)
(n=38)
Siek leave days
Thereof "isomatic" diagnosis
Thereof "psychiatric" or mixed diagnosis
Number of patients on sick leave
Number of drunk visits at the alcohol clinic
Number of admittances then
Number of days in the elinic then
Number of sober visits at the aleohol clinic
Discussion
The intention of this study has been to investigate the effect of a simple hypnotic
treatment on a number of variables which could be registered objectively, thus
avoiding the subjective and uncertain methods often used to judge the effect of
treatment in alcoholism (Hill &Blane 1967, Summers 1970). The variables examined
were considered to give an indirect measure of the alcohol consumption of the
patients, to the extent that it was large enough to cause social or medical consequences.
A moderate consumption of alcohol was on the contrary not necessarily expected
to be seen in these variables.
Before the treatment the groups showed no significant differences in the variables
studied and we consider the groups as randomly chosen from a population of
relatively advanced alcoholics. The differences between the groups H and N during
the period of observation were with one exception (number of admittances and days
of care at the alcohol clinic) in favour of the H-group, but due to the great variation
within the groups the differences were not statistically significant.
The most striking difference between the groups is the decrease in sick leave
days for "somatic" diagnoses in group H. It is considered that alcoholics often are
given sick leave for varying somatic diagnoses, when the real cause for the visit to
the doctor is difficulties caused by alcohol. The difference should point in the direc-
tion of a smaller misuse of alcohol in group H.
We hoped that the investigation would suggest the indications for treatment
with hypnosis. Edwards (1966) thinks that "hypnosis is of no value as an adjunct to
conventional treatment", while Smith-Moorhouse (1969) is of an opposite opinion.
But what is "hypnosis"? Edwards and our team gave hypnosis induction to an
unselected group of patients, without regard for the great individual variations in
receptivity to hypnosis. This implies the definition "Hypnosis is what succeeds a
hypnotic induction procedure". According to this definition all the 37 patients in
group H were in hypnosis during all of the seances. An operative definition seems
however more adequate to us now: "Hypnosis is what is measured with hypnosis
scales" (Unestahl 1971). According to this definition 2 patients were not in a hypnotic
trance at the fifth treatment, 9 in a doubtful or very light trance, 20 in a light to
medium deep trance and 6 possibly in deep trance. This estimation was done after-
wards according to a simple scale (Wolberg 1948, p. 106) but this evaluation
afterwards is too doubtful to allow any assortment of patient according to the depth