Colin Cunningham1, Maxine Stitzer2, Aimee N C Campbell3, Martina Pavlicova4, Mei-Chen Hu3, Edward V Nunes3. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Electronic address: mstitzer@jhmi.edu. 3. Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and New York State Psychiatric Institute. 4. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health Department of Biostatistics.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine prize-earning costs of contingency management (CM) incentives in relation to participants' pre-study enrollment drug use status (baseline (BL) positive vs. BL negative) and relate these to previously reported patterns of intervention effectiveness. METHODS:Participants were 255 substance users entering outpatient treatment who received thetherapeutic educational system (TES), in addition to usual care counseling. TES included a CM component such that participants could earn up to $600 in prizes on average over 12-weeks for providing drug negative urines and completing web-based cognitive behavior therapy modules. We examined distribution of prize draws and value of prizes earned for subgroups that were abstinent (BL negative; N=136) or not (BL positive; N=119) at study entry based on urine toxicology and breath alcohol screen. RESULTS: Distribution of draws earned (median=119 vs. 17; p<.0001) and prizes redeemed (median=54 vs. 9; p<.001) for drug abstinence differed significantly for BL negative compared to BL positive participants. BL negative earned on average twice as much in prizes as BL positive participants ($245 vs. $125). Median value of prizes earned was 5.4 times greater for BL negative compared to BL positive participants ($237 vs. $44; p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of expenditures in an abstinence incentive program were paid to BL negative participants. These individuals had high rates of drug abstinence during treatment and did not show improved abstinence outcomes with TES versus usual care (Campbell et al., 2014). Effectiveness of the abstinence-focused CM intervention included in TES may be enhanced by tailoring delivery based on patients' drug use status at treatment entry.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine prize-earning costs of contingency management (CM) incentives in relation to participants' pre-study enrollment drug use status (baseline (BL) positive vs. BL negative) and relate these to previously reported patterns of intervention effectiveness. METHODS:Participants were 255 substance users entering outpatient treatment who received the therapeutic educational system (TES), in addition to usual care counseling. TES included a CM component such that participants could earn up to $600 in prizes on average over 12-weeks for providing drug negative urines and completing web-based cognitive behavior therapy modules. We examined distribution of prize draws and value of prizes earned for subgroups that were abstinent (BL negative; N=136) or not (BL positive; N=119) at study entry based on urine toxicology and breath alcohol screen. RESULTS: Distribution of draws earned (median=119 vs. 17; p<.0001) and prizes redeemed (median=54 vs. 9; p<.001) for drug abstinence differed significantly for BL negative compared to BL positive participants. BL negative earned on average twice as much in prizes as BL positive participants ($245 vs. $125). Median value of prizes earned was 5.4 times greater for BL negative compared to BL positive participants ($237 vs. $44; p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of expenditures in an abstinence incentive program were paid to BL negative participants. These individuals had high rates of drug abstinence during treatment and did not show improved abstinence outcomes with TES versus usual care (Campbell et al., 2014). Effectiveness of the abstinence-focused CM intervention included in TES may be enhanced by tailoring delivery based on patients' drug use status at treatment entry.
Authors: K Silverman; C J Wong; S T Higgins; R K Brooner; I D Montoya; C Contoreggi; A Umbricht-Schneiter; C R Schuster; K L Preston Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Maxine L Stitzer; Jessica Peirce; Nancy M Petry; Kimberly Kirby; John Roll; Joseph Krasnansky; Allan Cohen; Jack Blaine; Ryan Vandrey; Ken Kolodner; Rui Li Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Oladunni Oluwoye; Jordan Skalisky; Ekaterina Burduli; Naomi S Chaytor; Sterling McPherson; Sean M Murphy; Jalene Herron; Katherine Hirchak; Mason Burley; Richard K Ries; John M Roll; Michael G McDonell Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Yuri A Maricich; Warren K Bickel; Lisa A Marsch; Kirstin Gatchalian; Jeffrey Botbyl; Hilary F Luderer Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 2.580