---

Introduction: Metacognition and perfectionism may have particular relevance in cognitive consequences of substance use. Substance use is an effective means of rapidly modifying cognitive events such as feelings, thoughts, or memories. The purpose of the present study was to assess the relationship of metacognition and positive or negative perfectionism with psychological consequences in the substance dependent patients. Methods: This was a retrospective correlation study. The sample consisted of 75 substance dependent men selected from the Hamedan city self-representative center for treatment of substance dependence. Wales’ Metacognition Questionniare (short form), Terry & Short Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale and Addiction Psychological Consequences Checklist were administered to them.  Findings: Metacognition(r=0.65), positive perfectionism(r=-0.29) and negative perfectionism(r=0.66), were all in significant correlation with psychological consequences. Multiple regression analysis also revealed s that metacognition, negative perfectionism and positive perfectionism could explain at least 54 percent of the variance of psychological consequences.  Discussion: High levels of metacognition and negative perfectionism can increase the adverse psychological consequences, while a high level of positive perfectionism may decrease those consequences. The results are fairly in keeping with findings of other studies. 

---

Aim and Background: Numerousfactorsincludingsocial, economicandpsychologicalstresseshave a role inthegroundsand incidenceof addiction.The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral stress managementon promotion ofdifferent domains ofquality oflife in men who are substance dependent. Methods and Materials: In an experimental study, 30 individuals who settled in Isfahan Therapeutic Community Center, Iran, were randomlydivided into experimental (15 subjects) and control (15 subjects) groups. The experimental group underwent ten 90-minute sessions of cognitive-behavioral stress management and the control group did not receive any particular treatment. All participants completed the quality of life inventory (SF-36) at the beginning of the study, completion of treatment and three months following the completion of treatment. Findings: Analysis of covariance results showed a significant difference between the two groups in promotion of different domains ofquality of life including physical function (F=4.09, P=0.012),physical role limitations (F=3.56, P=0.021), body pain(F=4.77, P=0.006), general health(F=3.98, P=0.014), vitality(F=9.36, P<0.0001), social function(F=17.57, P<0.0001) and mental health(F=5.42, P= 0.004)in the post test stage.In addition, analysis of covariance with repeated measuresshowed a significant difference in body­ pain(F=7.04, P = 0.013), general health(F=7.05, P= 0.013)in thefollow-up stages. Conclusions: Cognitive-behavioral stress management is effective in promotion of different domains ofquality of life in men who are substance dependent.