Contingency Management for Substance Use Disorders
Recruiting in Palo Alto (17 mi)
Overseen byRobert Levy, MD
Age: 18+
Sex: Any
Travel: May Be Covered
Time Reimbursement: Varies
Trial Phase: Academic
Recruiting
Sponsor: University of Minnesota
Must be taking: Buprenorphine-naloxone
Must not be taking: Amphetamines
Disqualifiers: Dementia, Development disabilities, others
No Placebo Group
Approved in 2 Jurisdictions
Trial Summary
What is the purpose of this trial?Contingency management (CM) is a behavioral intervention that involves incentivizing participants for target behaviors in a clinical setting. When applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, it has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the number of urine toxicology screens positive for illicit substances and increased engagement in treatment programs. However, there is a need to translate CM treatment to primary care settings. This study will implement and assess a CM program for patients with opioid use disorder, with or without comorbid stimulant use disorder, initiating outpatient addiction medicine services at a family medicine residency clinic. Eligible patients will earn monetary incentives for attending addiction medicine appointments and abstaining from substances during outpatient treatment. Data gathered from this pilot program will be used to improve patient outcomes, treatment, and retention for persons receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) in a primary care setting.
Will I have to stop taking my current medications?
The trial does not specify if you need to stop taking your current medications. However, you must have an active prescription for buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone) to participate.
What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Contingency Management for Substance Use Disorders?
Research shows that Contingency Management, which uses rewards like vouchers or prizes, helps people stay in treatment longer and achieve longer periods without using drugs. This approach has been effective in promoting abstinence in individuals with cocaine or heroin dependence.
12345Is Contingency Management safe for humans?
Research suggests that Contingency Management, including cash-based incentives, is generally safe for humans. Studies have shown that even high-value incentives do not increase substance use, indicating a favorable safety profile.
13456How is the Contingency Management treatment different from other treatments for substance use disorders?
Contingency Management is unique because it uses tangible rewards, like vouchers or prizes, to encourage abstinence from substance use, which is different from other treatments that may not involve direct incentives. This approach focuses on positive reinforcement to motivate behavior change.
13789Eligibility Criteria
This trial is for adults over 18 with Opioid Use Disorder and/or Stimulant Use Disorder who recently started opioid addiction treatment at Broadway Family Medicine. They must be prescribed buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone). Those with dementia, developmental disabilities, or low cognitive function, or those on amphetamines can't join the abstinence-based part but may join the attendance-only part.Inclusion Criteria
I am currently prescribed Suboxone.
I am 18 years old or older.
Recently initiated medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) at Broadway Family Medicine (BFM), within 2 weeks of recruitment
+1 more
Exclusion Criteria
Prescription for an amphetamine would exclude patients from the abstinence-based CM, but they could participate in the attendance-only CM
Dementia, development disabilities, or cognitive functioning that is too low to participate in study measures, as determined by chart review and consultation with overseeing physician.
Trial Timeline
Screening
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial
2-4 weeks
Treatment
Participants receive contingency management (CM) intervention, earning incentives for attending appointments and abstaining from substances
3 months
Regular follow-up appointments as per treatment plan
Follow-up
Participants are monitored for safety and effectiveness after treatment
9 months
Follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months
Participant Groups
The study tests Contingency Management (CM) in a primary care setting. CM rewards patients financially for attending addiction medicine appointments and staying substance-free. The goal is to see if this approach helps people stick with their outpatient treatment programs better.
3Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Active Control
Group I: Attendance-only CMExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Patients in this arm complete an appointments with his or her primary care provider (PCP) or member of the PCP's microteam . These appointments must be initiated by the PCP/microteam in accordance with the patient's treatment plan for regular follow-up appointments.
Group II: Attendance + abstinence CMExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Patients who test stimulant-positive during the initial urine drug screen (UDS) at their intake visit will be invited to additionally enroll in the abstinence CM schedule. All of the attendance-only CM rules described previously will apply to patients in the attendance + abstinence program.
Group III: Treatment as usual (TAU)Active Control1 Intervention
These patients will not be assigned to the CM programs, but will be invited to complete study measures at the same time points: baseline, 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months.
Contingency Management is already approved in United States, European Union for the following indications:
🇺🇸 Approved in United States as Contingency Management for:
- Substance Use Disorders
- Stimulant Use Disorder
- Methamphetamine Use Disorder
🇪🇺 Approved in European Union as Contingency Management for:
- Substance Use Disorders
- Addiction Treatment
Find a Clinic Near You
Research Locations NearbySelect from list below to view details:
University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN
Loading ...
Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?
University of MinnesotaLead Sponsor
References
Randomized trial of contingent prizes versus vouchers in cocaine-using methadone patients. [2021]Contingency management (CM) interventions frequently utilize vouchers as reinforcers, but a prize-based system is also efficacious. This study compared these approaches. Seventy-four cocaine-dependent methadone outpatients were randomly assigned to standard treatment (ST), ST plus a maximum of $585 in contingent vouchers, or ST plus an expected average maximum of $300 in contingent prizes for 12 weeks. CM participants achieved longer durations of abstinence (LDA) than ST participants, and CM conditions did not differ significantly in outcomes or amount of reinforcement earned. Although long-term abstinence did not differ by group, LDA during treatment was the best predictor of abstinence at 9 months. Thus, reinforcement with prizes was similar to voucher CM in promoting LDA, which is associated with posttreatment benefits.
Low-cost contingency management in community clinics: delivering incentives partially in group therapy. [2016]This study examined the feasibility and effectiveness of prize-based contingency management (CM) when incentives for attendance were administered in group therapy and incentives for abstinence were administered in individual meetings. Three community substance abuse treatment programs participated in this two-phase, crossover design study. Outpatients (N = 103) entering treatment who met diagnostic criteria for cocaine, opiate, and alcohol abuse or dependence were recruited. During the standard condition, participants received standard treatment and submitted breath and urine samples that were tested for alcohol, cocaine, and opiates twice weekly during Weeks 1-6 and once weekly during Weeks 7-12. During the CM condition, participants received the same standard treatment and sample and attendance monitoring, plus the opportunity to win prizes for negative samples and treatment attendance. Demographic information and substance abuse history were evaluated at intake, and posttreatment substance use (toxicology results and self-report) was evaluated at Month 6 and Month 9 follow-up interviews. Primary outcomes were weeks retained in treatment and longest duration of sustained abstinence (LDA). LDA was significantly greater in CM-condition participants, but weeks retained did not differ between groups. Rates of substance use were lower in CM participants at Month 9 but not at Month 6. This study suggests that it is feasible to deliver incentives for attendance in group therapy, but that further research is needed to understand the modest effects on attendance. Strengths and limitations of this study are discussed.
Vouchers versus prizes: contingency management treatment of substance abusers in community settings. [2016]Contingency management (CM) interventions usually use vouchers as reinforcers, but a new technique awards chances of winning prizes. This study compares these approaches. In community treatment centers, 142 cocaine- or heroin-dependent outpatients were randomly assigned to standard treatment (ST), ST with vouchers, or ST with prizes for 12 weeks. CM patients remained in treatment longer and achieved greater durations of objectively confirmed abstinence than did ST patients; CM conditions did not differ significantly. Although abstinence at 6- and 9-month follow-ups did not differ by group, the best predictor of abstinence was longest duration of abstinence achieved during treatment. Thus, prize and voucher CM systems are equally efficacious in promoting long durations of abstinence, which in turn are associated with benefits posttreatment.
Examining implementation of contingency management in real-world settings. [2021]Very little is known about how reward programs are implemented in real-world substance use treatment settings and whether training in contingency management (CM), an empirically supported rewards-based intervention, impacts their design quality. Providers (N = 214) completed surveys assessing CM beliefs, training, and practices related to use of tangible rewards in treatment. For providers reporting they had not used rewards in treatment previously (54%, n = 116), we assessed beliefs about and interest in adopting a reward-based program. For those endorsing prior reward experience (46%, n = 98), we assessed the features and delivery of rewards and the relation of reward-based intervention training to 4 parameters related to CM efficacy: reinforcement magnitude, immediacy, frequency, and escalation. Among providers without reward experience, endorsement of supportive statements about CM predicted interest in adopting a rewards-based program. Providers with reward experience most often targeted treatment attendance and engaged in behaviors likely to decrease the effectiveness of the intervention, including use of low magnitudes (≤ $25/client), delayed reinforcement, failure to escalate reward values, and offering reward opportunities less than weekly. Providers with longer durations of training were more likely to engage in behaviors consistent with effective CM, including larger magnitude rewards and immediate delivery of rewards. Results indicate that real-world treatment clinics are using reward-based programs but not in ways consistent with research protocols. Longer training exposure is associated with greater adherence to some aspects of CM protocol design. Other evidence-based design features are not being implemented as recommended, even with training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Contingency management in cocaine abusers: a dose-effect comparison of goods-based versus cash-based incentives. [2022]Goods-based contingency management interventions (e.g., those using vouchers or prizes as incentives) have demonstrated efficacy in reducing cocaine use, but cost has limited dissemination to community clinics. Recent research suggests that development of a cash-based contingency management approach may improve treatment outcomes while reducing operational costs of the intervention. However, the clinical safety of providing cash-based incentives to substance abusers has been a concern. The present 16-week study compared the effects of goods-based versus cash-based incentives worth $0, $25, $50, and $100 on short-term cocaine abstinence in a small sample of cocaine-dependent methadone patients (N = 12). A within-subject design was used; a 9-day washout period separated each of 8 incentive conditions. Higher magnitude ($50 and $100) cash-based incentives (checks) produced greater cocaine abstinence compared with the control ($0) condition, but a magnitude effect was not seen for goods-based incentives (vouchers). A trend was observed for greater rates of abstinence in the cash-based versus goods-based incentives at the $50 and $100 magnitudes. Receipt of $100 checks did not increase subsequent rates of cocaine use above those seen in control conditions. The efficacy and safety data provided in this and other recent studies suggest that use of cash-based incentives deserves consideration for clinical applications of contingency management, but additional confirmation in research using larger samples and more prolonged periods of incentive delivery is needed.
Contingency Management Abstinence Incentives: Cost and Implications for Treatment Tailoring. [2019]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.
Contingency management for treatment of substance abuse. [2019]Clinical research trials demonstrate the efficacy of contingency management procedures in treating substance use disorders. Usually, reinforcement, in the form of vouchers exchangeable for retail goods and services, is provided for drug abstinence in patients treated in psychosocial or methadone maintenance clinics. Recently, the types of reinforcers have been adapted to include lower cost alternatives, and reinforcement is being expanded to alter other target behaviors such as attendance at treatment, adherence to treatment goals, and compliance with medication. This chapter provides an overview of the populations and behaviors to which contingency management approaches have been applied. It also reviews design features that appear critical in the successful adaptation of the techniques. In addition, areas for future research are described.
Improving substance misuse outcomes in contingency management treatment with adjunctive formal psychotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [2021]Contingency management (CM) is a treatment for substance misuse that involves the provision of incentives. This review examines the hypothesis that adding another formal psychotherapy, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), to CM improves substance use outcomes at both treatment end and at post-treatment follow-up compared with CM only.
Motivation and Contingency Management Treatments for Substance Use Disorders. [2016]Contingency management (CM) is a highly efficacious psychosocial treatment for substance use disorders based on the principles of behavioral analysis. CM involves delivering a tangible positive reinforcer following objective evidence of submission of a drug-negative urine sample. Although CM interventions primarily involve applying extrinsic rewards, a patient's intrinsic motivation to change substance use behavior may also be impacted by CM. This chapter provides an introduction to CM interventions for substance use disorders and examines the impact of CM on intrinsic motivation . It also addresses applications of this intervention to other conditions and patient populations.