Literature DB >> 26646619

Interest and preferences for contingency management design among addiction treatment clientele.

Bryan Hartzler1, Sharon Garrett1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite strong support for its efficacy, debates persist about how dissemination of contingency management is most effectively undertaken. Currently-promoted contingency management methods are empirically-validated, yet their congruence with interests and preferences of addiction treatment clientele is unknown. Such client input is a foundational support for evidence-based clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: This study documented interest in incentives and preferences for fixed-ratio vs. variable-ratio and immediate vs. distal distribution of earned incentives among clients enrolled at three community programs affiliated with the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network.
METHODS: This multi-site study included anonymous survey completion by an aggregate sample of 358 treatment enrollees. Analyses first ruled out site differences in survey responses, and then tested age and gender as influences on client interest in financial incentives, and preferences for fixed-ratio vs. variable-ratio reinforcement and immediate vs. distal incentive distribution.
RESULTS: Interest in different types of $50 incentives (i.e. retail vouchers, transportation vouchers, cash) was highly inter-correlated, with a mean sample rating of 3.49 (0.83) on a five-point scale. While consistent across client gender, age was an inverse predictor of client interest in incentives. A majority of clients stated preference for fixed-ratio incentive magnitude and distal incentive distribution (67% and 63%, respectively), with these preferences voiced by a larger proportion of females.
CONCLUSION: Sample preferences contradict currently-promoted contingency management design features. Future efforts to disseminate contingency management may be more successful if flexibly undertaken in a manner that incorporates the interests and preferences of local client populations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contingency management; client preferences

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26646619      PMCID: PMC4877230          DOI: 10.3109/00952990.2015.1096365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse        ISSN: 0095-2990            Impact factor:   3.829


  53 in total

1.  Comparison of opiate-primary treatment seekers with and without alcohol use disorder.

Authors:  Bryan Hartzler; Dennis M Donovan; Zhen Huang
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2010-07-03

Review 2.  Some observations from behavioral economics for consideration in promoting money management among those with substance use disorders.

Authors:  Laura L Chivers; Stephen T Higgins
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.829

3.  Evaluating the reinforcement value of clinic-based privileges through a multiple choice procedure.

Authors:  M Kidorf; M L Stitzer; R R Griffiths
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.492

4.  Contingency management is effective across cocaine-dependent outpatients with different socioeconomic status.

Authors:  Roberto Secades-Villa; Gloria García-Fernández; Elsa Peña-Suárez; Olaya García-Rodríguez; Emilio Sánchez-Hervás; José Ramón Fernández-Hermida
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2012-09-19

5.  Rates and influences of alcohol use disorder comorbidity among primary stimulant misusing treatment-seekers: meta-analytic findings across eight NIDA CTN trials.

Authors:  Bryan Hartzler; Dennis M Donovan; Zhen Huang
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.829

6.  Survey assessment of methadone treatment services as reinforcers.

Authors:  M A Chutuape; K Silverman; M L Stitzer
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.829

7.  Counselor attitudes toward the use of motivational incentives in addiction treatment.

Authors:  Lori J Ducharme; Hannah K Knudsen; Amanda J Abraham; Paul M Roman
Journal:  Am J Addict       Date:  2010-09-21

8.  Contingency management is efficacious for cocaine abusers with prior treatment attempts.

Authors:  Carla J Rash; Sheila M Alessi; Nancy M Petry
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.157

9.  Income does not affect response to contingency management treatments among community substance abuse treatment-seekers.

Authors:  Carla J Rash; Todd A Olmstead; Nancy M Petry
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Income received during treatment does not affect response to contingency management treatments in cocaine-dependent outpatients.

Authors:  Carla J Rash; Leonardo F Andrade; Nancy M Petry
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 4.492

View more
  4 in total

1.  Contingency management works, clients like it, and it is cost-effective.

Authors:  Kimberly C Kirby; Lois A Benishek; Mary B Tabit
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.829

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Beliefs related to health care incentives: Comparison of substance use disorder treatment providers, medical treatment providers, and a public sample.

Authors:  Kimberly C Kirby; Matthew J Dwyer; Connor Burrows; Dustin A Fife; Elena Bresani; Mary Tabit; Bethany R Raiff
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2021-04-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.