Literature DB >> 25833033

Using contingency management procedures to reduce at-risk drinking in heavy drinkers.

Donald M Dougherty1, Sarah L Lake, Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak, Yuanyuan Liang, Tara E Karns, Jillian Mullen, John D Roache.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatments for alcohol use disorders typically have been abstinence based, but harm reduction approaches that encourage drinkers to alter their drinking behavior to reduce the probability of alcohol-related consequences, have gained in popularity. This study used a contingency management procedure to determine its effectiveness in reducing alcohol consumption among heavy drinkers.
METHODS: Eighty-two nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers (ages 21 to 54, M = 30.20) who did not meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence participated in the study. The study had 3 phases: (i) an Observation phase (4 weeks) where participants drank normally; (ii) a Contingency Management phase (12 weeks) where participants were paid $50 weekly for not exceeding low levels of alcohol consumption as measured by transdermal alcohol concentrations, <0.03 g/dl; and (iii) a Follow-up phase (12 weeks) where participants (n = 66) returned monthly for 3 months to self-report drinking after the contingencies were removed. Transdermal alcohol monitors were used to verify meeting contingency requirements; all other analyses were conducted on self-reported alcohol use.
RESULTS: On average 42.3% of participants met the contingency criteria and were paid an average of $222 during the Contingency Management phase, with an average $1,998 in total compensation throughout the study. Compared to the Observation phase, the percent of any self-reported drinking days significantly decreased from 59.9 to 40.0% in the Contingency Management and 32.0% in the Follow-up phases. The percent of self-reported heavy drinking days reported also significantly decreased from 42.4% in the Observation phase to 19.7% in the Contingency Management phase, which was accompanied by a significant increase in percent days of self-reported no (from 40.1 to 60.0%) and low-level drinking (from 9.9 to 15.4%). Self-reported reductions in drinking either persisted, or became more pronounced, during the Follow-up phase.
CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management was associated with a reduction in self-reported episodes of heavy drinking among nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers. These effects persisted even after incentives were removed, indicating the potential utility of contingency management as a therapeutic intervention to reduce harmful patterns of drinking.
Copyright © 2015 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contingency Management; Excessive Alcohol Use; Harm Reduction; Self-Report; Transdermal Monitors

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25833033      PMCID: PMC5607021          DOI: 10.1111/acer.12687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res        ISSN: 0145-6008            Impact factor:   3.455


  39 in total

1.  Effect of experimental analogs of contingency management treatment on cocaine seeking behavior.

Authors:  Mark K Greenwald; David M Ledgerwood; Leslie H Lundahl; Caren L Steinmiller
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.492

2.  Contingency management for smoking cessation among treatment-seeking patients in a community setting.

Authors:  Roberto Secades-Villa; Olaya García-Rodríguez; Carla López-Núñez; Fernando Alonso-Pérez; José R Fernández-Hermida
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 4.492

3.  Cellular photo digital breathalyzer for monitoring alcohol use: a pilot study.

Authors:  Gregory E Skipper; Natasha Thon; Robert L DuPont; Michael D Campbell; Wolfgang Weinmann; Friedrich M Wurst
Journal:  Eur Addict Res       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Sensitivity of commercial ethyl glucuronide (ETG) testing in screening for alcohol abstinence.

Authors:  Mark H Wojcik; Jeffrey S Hawthorne
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 2.826

5.  Contingency management for alcohol use reduction: a pilot study using a transdermal alcohol sensor.

Authors:  Nancy P Barnett; Jennifer Tidey; James G Murphy; Robert Swift; Suzanne M Colby
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 4.492

6.  Comparing the detection of transdermal and breath alcohol concentrations during periods of alcohol consumption ranging from moderate drinking to binge drinking.

Authors:  Donald M Dougherty; Nora E Charles; Ashley Acheson; Samantha John; R Michael Furr; Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 3.157

7.  Accounting for sex-related differences in the estimation of breath alcohol concentrations using transdermal alcohol monitoring.

Authors:  Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak; John D Roache; Yuanyuan Liang; Tara E Karns; Sharon E Cates; Donald M Dougherty
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  Contingent reinforcement increases cocaine abstinence during outpatient treatment and 1 year of follow-up.

Authors:  S T Higgins; C J Wong; G J Badger; D E Ogden; R L Dantona
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2000-02

9.  Sequential combination of self-report, breath carbon monoxide, and saliva cotinine to assess smoking status.

Authors:  M A Javors; J P Hatch; R J Lamb
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2010-09-06       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Contingency management for cocaine treatment: cash vs. vouchers.

Authors:  David S Festinger; Karen L Dugosh; Kimberly C Kirby; Brittany L Seymour
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2014-03-06
View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go?

Authors:  Nancy M Petry; Sheila M Alessi; Todd A Olmstead; Carla J Rash; Kristyn Zajac
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2017-06-22

2.  Pilot investigation of a phosphatidylethanol-based contingency management intervention targeting alcohol use.

Authors:  Michael G McDonell; Jordan Skalisky; Emily Leickly; Michael F Orr; Sterling McPherson; John Roll; Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak; Martin Javors
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2017-07-17

Review 3.  Assessment of Alcohol Use in the Natural Environment.

Authors:  Thomas M Piasecki
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.455

4.  Experiences with SCRAMx alcohol monitoring technology in 100 alcohol treatment outpatients.

Authors:  Sheila M Alessi; Nancy P Barnett; Nancy M Petry
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.492

5.  Transdermal alcohol concentration data collected during a contingency management program to reduce at-risk drinking.

Authors:  Donald M Dougherty; Tara E Karns; Jillian Mullen; Yuanyuan Liang; Sarah L Lake; John D Roache; Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 6.  Contingency Management: New Directions and Remaining Challenges for An Evidence-Based Intervention.

Authors:  Carla J Rash; Maxine Stitzer; Jeremiah Weinstock
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2016-09-28

7.  Behavioral Impulsivity Does Not Predict Naturalistic Alcohol Consumption or Treatment Outcomes.

Authors:  Jillian Mullen; Charles W Mathias; Tara E Karns; Yuanyuan Liang; Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak; John D Roache; Richard J Lamb; Donald M Dougherty
Journal:  Addict Disord Their Treat       Date:  2016-09

Review 8.  New steps for treating alcohol use disorder.

Authors:  Erin J Campbell; Andrew J Lawrence; Christina J Perry
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  Considerations for Implementing Contingency Management in Substance Abuse Treatment Clinics: The Veterans Affairs Initiative as a Model.

Authors:  Carla J Rash; Dominick DePhilippis
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2019-06-26

Review 10.  Addiction as a BAD, a Behavioral Allocation Disorder.

Authors:  R J Lamb; Brett C Ginsburg
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 3.533

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.