ArticleJournal of substance use and addiction treatment2024
Examining the impact of low magnitude incentives in contingency management protocols: Non-engagement in Petry et al. 2004.
Article in Journal of substance use and addiction treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing incentives in family medicine for opioid use disorder treatment: a qualitative inquiry on provider and patient preferences for a low magnitude reward program compatible with buprenorphine treatment.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2025Article
- What does a dollar mean to you? utilizing intrinsic rewards within contingency management.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
INTRODUCTION/
methodCurrent federal regulations limit the use of incentives in contingency management (CM) interventions to a nominal total value (i.e., up to $75/patient/year in aggregate of federal funds). This limit represents a striking divergence from the magnitudes used in evidence-based CM protocols. In the present report, we re-analyze data from the Petry et al. (2004) study, which was designed to test the efficacy of two different magnitude CM protocols ($80 and $240 in 2004 dollars) relative to usual intensive outpatient services for treatment-seeking patients with cocaine use. Petry et al. (2004) found that the $240 condition [~$405 in 2024 dollars], but not the $80 condition [~$135 in 2024 dollars], improved abstinence outcomes relative to usual care. The lower-cost $80 condition is the closest condition to the current federal $75 limit that permits a head-to-head comparison of magnitudes. A re-analysis offers an opportunity to examine the impact of low magnitude protocols in more detail, specifically in terms of non-engagement with treatment (defined as absence of negative samples and thus not encountering incentives for abstinence).
resultsWe found moderate to large effects favoring the $240 condition over both usual care (ds ranging 0.33 to 0.97) and the $80 condition (ds ranging 0.39 to 0.83) across various thresholds of non-engagement with the incentives/reinforcers for abstinence. Importantly, the $80 condition evidenced higher (worse) rates of non-engagement compared to the usual care condition (i.e., small and negative effect sizes ranging -0.30 to 0.14), though not reaching statistical significance.
conclusionsThese results suggest that CM protocols designed to stay within the federal limitation of $75 should be discouraged, and evidence-based protocols should be recommended along with the regulatory reforms necessary to support their implementation.
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.