ArticleThe American journal of drug and alcohol abuse2016
Interest and preferences for contingency management design among addiction treatment clientele.
Article in The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beliefs related to health care incentives: Comparison of substance use disorder treatment providers, medical treatment providers, and a public sample.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2021Article
- Considerations for Implementing Contingency Management in Substance Abuse Treatment Clinics: The Veterans Affairs Initiative as a Model.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- Contingency Management: New Directions and Remaining Challenges for An Evidence-Based Intervention.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2017Review
- Contingency management works, clients like it, and it is cost-effective.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite 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.
objectiveThis 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsInterest 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.
conclusionSample 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.