ArticlePloS one2023
Acceptability and feasibility of using contingency management for cannabis reduction in specialist mental health services for psychosis: A qualitative study of staff views.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contingency management interventions for substance use and addictive behaviours: Review of the United Kingdom evidence base.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimThere is increasing evidence linking cannabis use to onset, continuation, and relapse of psychosis. Contingency Management (CM) is discussed as a candidate intervention to reduce cannabis use. Our study aimed to explore staff views on the feasibility and acceptability of using CM for cannabis reduction in early intervention services for psychosis (EIS), in order to inform wider learning about implementation of such approaches in mental health services.
settingEIS teams in England.
methodSemi-structured interviews and focus groups analysed thematically.
participantsForty managers and staff members working in mental health services where a CM intervention was delivered as part of a trial, four staff who delivered CM in these settings, and three key informants (academic experts in relevant fields).
interventionA complex intervention comprising CM with incremental financial incentives (vouchers) for reducing or stopping cannabis use, and psychoeducation about the risks of cannabis use.
findingsAcceptability appeared to depend on how well the intervention was seen to fit with the service setting and ethos. Concerns included who should deliver CM; potential impacts on the therapeutic relationship; the ethics of using incentives to reduce socially objectionable behaviours; and how CM fits with the work of mental health practitioners. Feasibility concerns centred on resource limitations including time, cost, training, and national guidance and commissioning.
conclusionsStaff attitudes are likely to be a crucial influence on successful implementation of contingency management for cannabis reduction in specialist mental health settings. Several contextual barriers would need to be overcome to increase the acceptability of the intervention for use in early intervention services for psychosis.
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.