Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Addict Behav. 2017 Jun 22;31(8):907–921. doi: 10.1037/adb0000291

Table 3.

Details of studies targeting attendance to substance use disorder treatment.

Study N Study
design		 Target of
CM		 Treatment groups Length of
CM
intervention		 Max.
possible or
avg.
earned		 Medication Verification
method		 Results Post-
intervention
follow-up		 Maternal/infant
outcomes
Svikis et al. (1997) 142 RCT Attendance

  1. Fixed vouchers $1/day

  2. Fixed vouchers $5/day

  3. Fixed vouchers, $10/day

  4. No vouchers

 1 week

  1. $7 max.

  2. $35 max.

  3. $70 max.

  4. NA

 Methadone optional NA CM = controls among methadone patients None Not reported
CM > controls among non-methadone patients, $5–$10/day significantly more effective than $0–$1/day
Jones et al. (2000) 68 RCT Attendance

  1. Fixed vouchers with bonus for 5–7 days of attendance

  2. No vouchers

 1 week

  1. $85 max.

  2. NA

 None NA CM = controls None Not reported
Jones et al. (2001) 85 RCT Attendance

  1. Escalating, resetting vouchers

  2. No vouchers

 1 week

  1. $3591 avg.

  2. NA

 Methadone Urine immunoassay, GCMS2 confirmation CM > controls No difference between groups at 2–4 weeks following incentives Not reported
Svikis et al. (2007) 91 RCT Attendance

  1. Escalating voucher schedule

  2. Treatment as usual

 2 weeks

  1. $525 max.

  2. NA

 Methadone optional NA CM > control, CM participants attended significantly more days of treatment, more consistent attendance None Not reported

Note:

1

Includes following week when abstinence from cocaine was the CM target, data presented in Table 2,

2

Gas chromatography, mass spectrometry.