BACKGROUND: This study was performed to investigate the efficacy of a voucher-based reinforcement therapy (VBRT) rewarding drug-free urine for adolescents with cannabis use disorder. METHODS: A controlled 10-week study where 59 adolescents aged 14-18 years were assigned by cohorts into groups of either an integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and VBRT or CBT with attendance-based reward program. Substance use was monitored by twice-weekly urinalysis. Other measures were collected at pre- and posttreatment and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the linear change between conditions for cannabis use either from Sessions 1 to 10 or between end-of-treatment to 3-month follow-up. Also, self-efficacy and coping response did not show improvement during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the addition of contingency management (CM) to CBT in youth was not found to be more efficacious than similar compensation rewarding attendance only. Continued examination of the efficacy of CM and its interaction with the associated mechanisms of behavior change of CBT in youth is necessary. Examination of the effect of the magnitude of the reward as well as considering the emotional and cognitive developmental differences from adults is warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to investigate the efficacy of a voucher-based reinforcement therapy (VBRT) rewarding drug-free urine for adolescents with cannabis use disorder. METHODS: A controlled 10-week study where 59 adolescents aged 14-18 years were assigned by cohorts into groups of either an integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and VBRT or CBT with attendance-based reward program. Substance use was monitored by twice-weekly urinalysis. Other measures were collected at pre- and posttreatment and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the linear change between conditions for cannabis use either from Sessions 1 to 10 or between end-of-treatment to 3-month follow-up. Also, self-efficacy and coping response did not show improvement during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the addition of contingency management (CM) to CBT in youth was not found to be more efficacious than similar compensation rewarding attendance only. Continued examination of the efficacy of CM and its interaction with the associated mechanisms of behavior change of CBT in youth is necessary. Examination of the effect of the magnitude of the reward as well as considering the emotional and cognitive developmental differences from adults is warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescent; cannabis use disorder; cognitive-behavioral therapy; contingency management; treatment
Authors: Donald M Dougherty; Sarah L Lake; Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak; Yuanyuan Liang; Tara E Karns; Jillian Mullen; John D Roache Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Dustin C Lee; Nicolas J Schlienz; Erica N Peters; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Eric C Strain; Ryan Vandrey Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Catherine Stanger; Emily A Scherer; Hoa T Vo; Steven F Babbin; Ashley A Knapp; James R McKay; Alan J Budney Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2019-06-27
Authors: Oladunni Oluwoye; Liat Kriegel; Karl C Alcover; Sterling McPherson; Michael G McDonell; John M Roll Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Danielle R Davis; Allison N Kurti; Joan M Skelly; Ryan Redner; Thomas J White; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 4.018