Table 3.
Literature reviewed for the “Optimizing contingency management for personalized interventions” section
| Study | Age (years) | n | SUD type | CM type | CM duration (weeks) | Primary outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Packer et al12 | 30 (SD 9.98) | 103 | Tobacco-use disorder | Varying durations of CM High vs low magnitude No-delay vs lump sum |
1 | High-magnitude reinforcement provided immediately, but in incremental amounts was associated with longer intervals to relapse during treatment in comparison with high-magnitude reinforcement provided in a single lump sum after a delay; low rates of responding in the low-magnitude conditions made interpretation of the impact of delay in those conditions difficult |
| Roll et al13 | 32 (SD 9.53) | 118 | Methamphetamine-use disorder | Fishbowl CM with 1, 2, or 4 months CM | 16 | Participants more likely to remain abstinent through the 16-week trial as CM duration increased; longer CM doses more effective at maintaining methamphetamine abstinence |
| Higgins et al30 | Voucher group 31.8 (SD 3.9) No-voucher group 30.9 (SD 6.1) |
40 | Cocaine-use disorder | Voucher exchangeable for retail items | 12 | Average durations of continuous cocaine abstinence presented via urinalysis during treatment significantly longer for group with vouchers vs group without vouchers (P =0.03); 24 weeks after treatment entry, voucher group showed significantly greater improvement than no-voucher group on the ASI drug and psychiatric scales |
| Stitzer et al31 | 32.7 | 34 | Tobacco-use disorder | Standard CM With a 5-day reduction period before CM (escalated rewards based on percentage reduction from baseline levels) |
4 | Participants who earned more during cut-down period had greater levels of absence and length of absence |
| Higgins et al32 | Contingent group 32.6 (SD 5.7) Noncontingent group 33.2 (SD 7.0) Control group 31.4 (SD 6.3) |
39 | Opioid-use disorder | Standard CM with a 3-week methadone-stabilization period | 8 | Contingent group presented significantly lower opiate-positive urine samples during weeks 8–11 (14% positive) than the noncontingent (38% positive) or control (50% positive) groups |
| Robles et al33 | 40.73 (SD not reported) | 48 | Opioid-use disorder | Voucher exchangeable for retail items | 22 | Participants given CM for attendance or abstinence; participants in CM for abstinence had significantly longer periods of opiate abstinence and lower rates of cocaine use |
| Budney et al34 | 32 (SD 8.5) | 60 | Cannabis-use disorder | Voucher exchangeable for retail items | 14 | Treatment-seeking individuals saw significantly more weeks of continuous cannabis abstinence when given CM in conjunction with MBT |
| Kadden et al35 | 32.7(SD 9.6) | 240 | Cannabis-use disorder | Standard CM paired with either CBT and motivational enhancement or CM only | 9 | Those in the two CM groups provided significantly more urine-negative samples than therapies alone; only CM had higher rates of abstinence at 1 year posttreatment; CM with CBT + MET had higher follow-up rates |
| Lamb et al93 | 37 (SD not reported) | 102 | Tobacco-use disorder | Escalating reinforcement reset Treatments delivering incentives for breath COs at or below the 10th, 30th, 50th, or 70th percentile of recent CO values | 12 | Shaping successful in decreasing CO values across groups; all participants in all groups reached desired CO level at least once |
| Lamb et al94 | 38 (SD 11.9) | 71 | Tobacco-use disorder | Escalating reinforcement with reset Participants received incentives for providing breath samples with CO levels that were <4 ppm or that were at or better than the best 60th percentile within a four or nine-visit window | 12 | CO levels substantially reduced and readiness-to-quit measure increased in both groups; however, more individuals in four-sample window group achieved CO <4 ppm, indicating recent abstinence; these individuals did so more rapidly and for a greater number of visits |
| Lamb et al95 | 39.2 (SD 11.7) | 146 | Tobacco-use disorder | Escalating schedule with reset Standard CM or CM shaping CM shaped abstinence by providing incentives for CO levels lower than the seven lowest of the participant’s last nine samples or <4 ppm | 12 | Participants were determined to be hard to treat or easier to treat (reached absence during baseline). Participants who were in easier-to-treat and standard CM did significantly better than those who were harder to treat; his difference did not exist in the CM-shaping group |
Abbreviations: SUD, substance-use disorder; CM, contingency management; CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy; MET, motivational enhancement therapy.