ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2025
Evaluating provider report of fidelity to contingency management in opioid treatment programs.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWith growing adoption of contingency management (CM) in addiction treatment programs, ensuring intervention fidelity over time is essential for improving patient outcomes. Nonetheless, ensuring an intervention is delivered as intended can be time- and resource-intensive for organizations. Finding ways to monitor fidelity without unduly burdening health systems is critical.
methodsThis study evaluated the feasibility of using provider report to monitor CM fidelity compared to traditional observer ratings using the CM Competence Scale, leveraging data from 28 opioid treatment programs that participated in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Providers (n = 86) reported CM fidelity across 3143 sessions with observer ratings conducted for 72 of these sessions from 29 providers to assess concurrence of provider- and observer-ratings.
resultsProviders reported high fidelity for most CM practices, with high concordance with ratings from trained observers on practices that were easily observable/objective (e.g., discussing reinforcement earned in current and future session). In contrast, concordance between provider and observer ratings was lower for more nuanced practices (e.g., making connections between CM and the patients' broader treatment and recovery goals).
conclusionsOverall, our findings suggest that while provider-report may effectively capture many aspects of CM delivery, discrepancies in fidelity reporting of specific CM practices warrant further investigation. Future research is needed to determine the optimal approaches for ensuring providers consistently deliver all CM elements with fidelity.
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.