ArticleSubstance use & addiction journal2026
Reason to Expand the Contingency Management Workforce: Coaching-to-Criterion Results for Addiction Professionals and Peer Specialists.
Article in Substance use & addiction journal, 2026. 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.
- Implementing contingency management to improve engagement among justice-involved clients referred for substance use disorder services.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven well-established efficacy of contingency management (CM), demand grows for effective implementation support. Coaching-to-criterion is a strategy for assuring workforce capability to deliver CM programming with fidelity. To what extent this preparative strategy is comparably useful for addiction professionals and peer specialists is unknown.
methodsTwo ongoing endeavors-state opioid response-funded implementation support for 7 sites implementing CM programming and an National Institute of Health-funded hybrid type 1 effectiveness/implementation trial testing peer-delivered CM at 9 sites-share a coaching-to-criterion process as common methodology. For workforce members, participation in serial group coaching sessions eventuated in completion of an observed standardized patient encounter with Likert-rating of 6 CM Competence Scale domains (1 = very poor, 7 = excellent). A coach provides immediate, performance-based feedback, and if an a priori benchmark ("adequate" ratings of 4) is not initially reached, a skill-specific replay opportunity is undertaken. Non-inferiority analysis tested scale score equivalence of addiction professionals (n = 51) and peer specialists (n = 64), relative to a 0.25 standard deviation (SD) margin. Comparative resourcing of coaching efforts, scale psychometrics, and patterns of CM skillfulness were also examined.
resultsAs intended, all workforce members (N = 115) met the criterion, and the mean scale score (
conclusionsAs demand grows for CM implementation, so too will the diversity of workforce needed to capably deliver it. This report documents that a coaching-to-criterion process sufficiently prepared both addiction professionals and peer specialists to deliver CM and that resulting skill among these groups did not appreciably differ nor did the required coaching efforts.
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.