Michael G McDonell1,2,3,4, Jordan Skalisky1,3, Ekaterina Burduli4,5, Albert Foote2, Alexandria Granbois2, Kenneth Smoker2, Katherine Hirchak6, Jalene Herron6, Richard K Ries7, Abigail Echo-Hawk8, Celestina Barbosa-Leiker4,5, Dedra Buchwald2,3, John Roll1,3,4, Sterling M McPherson2,3,4. 1. Behavioral Health Innovations, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 2. Institute for Research and Education to Advance Community Health and Partnerships for Native Health, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 3. Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 4. Program for Excellence in Addiction Research, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 5. College of Nursing, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 6. Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Urban Indian Health Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To test if contingency management (CM) interventions for alcohol and drug abstinence were associated with increased alcohol and drug abstinence among American Indian adults with alcohol dependence who also use drugs. DESIGN: In this 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial, American Indian adults with alcohol dependence who also used drugs were randomized to four conditions: (1) incentives for submission of urine samples only (control condition), (2) CM incentives for alcohol abstinence, (3) CM incentives for drug abstinence or (4) CM incentives for abstinence from both alcohol and drugs. SETTING: A Northern Plains Reservation in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 114 American Indian adults aged 35.8 years (standard deviation = 10.4); 49.1% were male. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants received incentives if they demonstrated abstinence from alcohol (CM for alcohol, n = 30), abstinence from their most frequently used drug (CM for drugs, n = 27) or abstinence from both alcohol and their most frequently used drug (CM for alcohol and drugs, n = 32) as assessed by urine tests. Controls (n = 25) received incentives for submitting urine samples only. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were urine ethyl glucuronide (alcohol) and drug tests conducted three times per week during the 12-week intervention period. Data analyses included listwise deletion and multiple imputation to account for missing data. FINDINGS: The three CM groups were significantly (P < 0.05) more likely to submit alcohol-abstinent urine samples compared with the control condition, with odds ratios ranging from 2.4 to 4.8. The CM for drugs (OR = 3.2) and CM for alcohol and drugs (OR = 2.5) were significantly more likely to submit urine samples that indicated drug abstinence, relative to the control condition (P < 0.05). However, these differences were not significant in multiple imputation analyses (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management (CM) incentives for abstinence were associated with increased alcohol abstinence in American Indian adults diagnosed with alcohol dependence who also used drugs, living on a rural reservation. The effect of CM incentives on drug abstinence was inconclusive.
AIMS: To test if contingency management (CM) interventions for alcohol and drug abstinence were associated with increased alcohol and drug abstinence among American Indian adults with alcohol dependence who also use drugs. DESIGN: In this 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial, American Indian adults with alcohol dependence who also used drugs were randomized to four conditions: (1) incentives for submission of urine samples only (control condition), (2) CM incentives for alcohol abstinence, (3) CM incentives for drug abstinence or (4) CM incentives for abstinence from both alcohol and drugs. SETTING: A Northern Plains Reservation in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 114 American Indian adults aged 35.8 years (standard deviation = 10.4); 49.1% were male. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants received incentives if they demonstrated abstinence from alcohol (CM for alcohol, n = 30), abstinence from their most frequently used drug (CM for drugs, n = 27) or abstinence from both alcohol and their most frequently used drug (CM for alcohol and drugs, n = 32) as assessed by urine tests. Controls (n = 25) received incentives for submitting urine samples only. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were urine ethyl glucuronide (alcohol) and drug tests conducted three times per week during the 12-week intervention period. Data analyses included listwise deletion and multiple imputation to account for missing data. FINDINGS: The three CM groups were significantly (P < 0.05) more likely to submit alcohol-abstinent urine samples compared with the control condition, with odds ratios ranging from 2.4 to 4.8. The CM for drugs (OR = 3.2) and CM for alcohol and drugs (OR = 2.5) were significantly more likely to submit urine samples that indicated drug abstinence, relative to the control condition (P < 0.05). However, these differences were not significant in multiple imputation analyses (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management (CM) incentives for abstinence were associated with increased alcohol abstinence in American Indian adults diagnosed with alcohol dependence who also used drugs, living on a rural reservation. The effect of CM incentives on drug abstinence was inconclusive.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mikhail N Koffarnus; Conrad J Wong; Michael Fingerhood; Dace S Svikis; George E Bigelow; Kenneth Silverman Journal: J Appl Behav Anal Date: 2013-08-12
Authors: Michael G McDonell; Emily Leickly; Sterling McPherson; Jordan Skalisky; Debra Srebnik; Frank Angelo; Roger Vilardaga; Jenny R Nepom; John M Roll; Richard K Ries Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Jessica M Peirce; Nancy M Petry; Maxine L Stitzer; Jack Blaine; Scott Kellogg; Frank Satterfield; Marion Schwartz; Joe Krasnansky; Eileen Pencer; Lolita Silva-Vazquez; Kimberly C Kirby; Charlotte Royer-Malvestuto; John M Roll; Allan Cohen; Marc L Copersino; Ken Kolodner; Rui Li Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-02
Authors: Kamilla L Venner; Brenna L Greenfield; Kylee J Hagler; Jeremiah Simmons; Donna Lupee; Everett Homer; Yvette Yamutewa; Jane Ellen Smith Journal: Addict Behav Rep Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Katherine A Hirchak; Abram J Lyons; Jalene L Herron; Gordon Kordas; Jennifer L Shaw; Kelley Jansen; Jaedon P Avey; Sterling M McPherson; Dennis Donovan; John Roll; Dedra Buchwald; Richard Ries; Michael G McDonell Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-12-11