Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42551922›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2026

Preferences for Smartphone Versus In-Person Delivery of Contingency Management: A Web-Based Survey of Australians Who Use Methamphetamine.

Rebecca McKetin, Annelies L Robijn, Simon Clay, Shalini Arunogiri, Samantha Colledge-Frisby, Alison D Marshall, Louisa Degenhardt, Rachel Sutherland, Long Nguyen, Michael Christmass and 7 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Rebecca McKetinNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2833-4830
Annelies L RobijnNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Simon ClayNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6676-7608
Shalini ArunogiriTurning Point & Monash Addiction Research Centre, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Samantha Colledge-FrisbyNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3571-0136
Alison D MarshallThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Louisa DegenhardtNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rachel SutherlandNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5337-1751
Long NguyenBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael ChristmassNational Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Zachary WilkinsonNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Dean MembreyCoHealth, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul McCartneyCoHealth, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Jack NagleConnections Based Living, Melbourne, Australia.
Tayla DeganNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3552-4627
Michael FarrellNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Meredith GinleyEast Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA.

Funding

National Centre for Research on Emerging Drugs of Concern NCR4SF07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSmartphone delivery of contingency management (CM) could overcome barriers to dissemination of this effective treatment for methamphetamine use. We quantified help-seeking intentions for CM and preferences for smartphone versus in-person delivery of CM amongst people who used methamphetamine.

methodsAn open web-based cross-sectional survey of 220 Australian residents who had used methamphetamine weekly or more often in the past year was conducted. Help-seeking intentions for CM were compared to other available treatment options using the General Help Seeking Questionnaire. Preferences for three CM models: in-person voucher-based CM, in-person prize-based CM and a smartphone-delivered model of CM, were sought, along with preferences for other aspects of CM delivery.

resultsHelp-seeking intentions were similar for CM and other treatment options (82% vs. 76%-81% likely to seek help). Smartphone delivery of CM was preferred by 43% of participants (cf. 27% for in-person voucher CM and 30% for in-person prize draw CM). Overall, other preferences were for a fixed (predictable) reinforcement schedule (78%), cash (53%) or gift card (40%) rewards rather than merchandise (7%), and adjunctive support (78%) - mostly counselling (50%) and withdrawal management (43%). Participants wanted a median minimum payment of $69 (interquartile range $58-$77) to start CM, and a minimal median potential earnings of $4000 (interquartile range $3600-$4500) over a 12-week program. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsWe found strong potential demand for smartphone-delivered CM, although adjunctive counselling and withdrawal management would be needed and incentives may need to be larger than those used in conventional CM models.

Indexed as

Amphetamine-Related DisordersBehavior TherapyMethamphetaminePatient PreferenceSmartphoneAdultAustralasian PeopleAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultMethamphetaminecontingency managementmethamphetaminesubstance usesurveytreatment

Identifiers

PMID42551922
PMCPMC13437133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.