ArticleHarm reduction journal2021
What are the ethical implications of using prize-based contingency management in substance use? A scoping review.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contingency Management for Veteran Smokers Undergoing Elective Major Surgery: Protocol and Rationale for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Utility of substance-free alternatives in treating and preventing harmful substance use: A narrative review of the translational research spectrum.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Review
- Barriers and pathways to re-engage people with HIV and substance use in medical care: a qualitative study among persons with lived experience.AIDS research and therapy · 2025Article
- Contingency Management for Drug Use Disorders: Meta-Analysis and Application of Tolin's Criteria.Clinical psychology : a publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association · 2024Article
- Rewarding recovery: the time is now for contingency management for opioid use disorder.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- Acceptability and Usability of a Reward-Based Mobile App for Opioid Treatment Settings: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe area of substance use is notable for its early uptake of incentives and wealth of research on the topic. This is particularly true for prize-based contingency management (PB-CM), a particular type of incentive that uses a fishbowl prize-draw design. Given that PB-CM interventions are gaining momentum to address the dual public health crises of opiate and stimulant use in North America and beyond, it is imperative that we better understand and critically analyze their implications. PURPOSE: The purpose of this scoping review paper is to identify the characteristics of PB-CM interventions for people who use substances and explore ethical implications documented in the literature as well as emerging ethical implications that merit further consideration.
methodsThe PRISMA-ScR checklist was used in conjunction with Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to guide this scoping review. We completed a two-pronged analysis of 52 research articles retrieved through a comprehensive search across three key scholarly databases. After extracting descriptive data from each article, we used 9 key domains to identify characteristics of the interventions followed by an analysis of ethical implications.
resultsWe analyzed the characteristics of PB-CM interventions which were predominantly quantitative studies aimed at studying the efficacy of PB-CM interventions. All of the interventions used a prize-draw format with a classic magnitude of 50%. Most of the interventions combined both negative and positive direction to reward processes, behaviors, and/or outcomes. One ethical implication was identified in the literature: the risk of gambling relapse. We also found three emerging ethical implications by further analyzing participant characteristics, intervention designs, and potential impact on the patient-provider relationship. These implications include the potential deceptive nature of PB-CM, the emphasis placed on the individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health, and failures to address vulnerability and power dynamics.
conclusionsThis scoping review offers important insights into the ethics on PB-CM and its implications for research ethics, clinical ethics, and public health ethics. Additionally, it raises important questions that can inform future research and dialogues to further tease out the ethical issues associated with PB-CM.
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.