Patients' beliefs towards contingency management: Target behaviours, incentives and the remote application of these interventions.
acceptability
beliefs
contingency management
substance use
survey
Journal
Drug and alcohol review
ISSN: 1465-3362
Titre abrégé: Drug Alcohol Rev
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9015440
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
revised:
19
04
2021
received:
05
01
2021
accepted:
26
04
2021
pubmed:
26
5
2021
medline:
1
4
2022
entrez:
25
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Contingency management interventions are among the most efficacious psychosocial interventions in promoting abstinence from smoking, alcohol and substance use. The aim of this study was to assess the beliefs and objections towards contingency management among patients in UK-based drug and alcohol services to help understand barriers to uptake and support the development and implementation of these interventions. The Service User Survey of Incentives was developed and implemented among patients (N = 181) at three UK-based drug and alcohol treatment services. Descriptive analyses were conducted to ascertain positive and negative beliefs about contingency management, acceptability of different target behaviours, incentives and delivery mechanisms including delivering incentives remotely using technology devices such as mobile telephones. Overall, 81% of participants were in favour of incentive programs, with more than 70% of respondents agreeing with the majority of positive belief statements. With the exception of two survey items, less than a third of participants agreed with negative belief statements. The proportion of participants indicating a neutral response was higher for negative statements (27%) indicating greater levels of ambiguity towards objections and concerns regarding contingency management. Positive beliefs towards contingency management interventions were found, including high levels of acceptability towards a range of target behaviours, incentives and the use of technology devices to remotely monitor behaviour and deliver incentives. These findings have implications for the development and implementation of remote contingency management interventions within the UK drug treatment services.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
96-105Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
Références
Ainscough TS, Mcneill A, Strang J, Calder R, Brose LS. Contingency management interventions for non-prescribed drug use during treatment for opiate addiction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017;178:318-39.
Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, Greenwell L, Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2006;101:1546-60.
Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction 2006;101:192-203.
Griffith JD, Rowan-Szal GA, Roark RR, Simpson DD. Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;58:55-66.
Lumley J, Chamberlain C, Dowswell T, Oliver S, Oakley L, Watson L. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3:CD001055.
Higgins ST, Petry NM. Contingency management: incentives for sobriety. Alcohol Res Health 1999;23:122-7.
Mcpherson SM, Burduli E, Smith CL et al. A review of contingency management for the treatment of substance-use disorders: adaptation for underserved populations, use of experimental technologies, and personalized optimization strategies. Substance Abuse Rehabil 2018;9:43-57.
Kirby KC, Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kerwin ME. Substance abuse treatment providers' beliefs and objections regarding contingency management: implications for dissemination. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;85:19-27.
Rash CJ, Petry NM, Kirby KC, Martino S, Roll J, Stitzer ML. Identifying provider beliefs related to contingency management adoption using the contingency management beliefs questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Depend 2012;121:205-12.
Davis DR, Kurti AN, Skelly JM, Redner R, White TJ, Higgins ST. A review of the literature on contingency management in the treatment of substance use disorders, 2009-2014. Prev Med 2016;92:36-46.
Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kirby KC et al. Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2014;109:1426-36.
Shearer J, Tie H, Byford S. Economic evaluations of contingency management in illicit drug misuse programmes: a systematic review. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015;34:289-98.
Rash CJ, Stitzer M, Weinstock J. Contingency management: new directions and remaining challenges for an evidence-based intervention. J Subst Abuse Treat 2017;72:10-8.
Petry NM. Contingency management treatments: controversies and challenges. Addiction 2010;105:1507-9.
Srebnik D, Sugar A, Coblentz P et al. Acceptability of contingency management among clinicians and clients within a co-occurring mental health and substance use treatment program. Am J Addict 2013;22:432-6.
Raiff BR, Jarvis BP, Turturici M, Dallery J. Acceptability of an internet-based contingency management intervention for smoking cessation: views of smokers, nonsmokers, and healthcare professionals. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2013;21:204-13.
Alessi SM, Barnett NP, Petry NM. Experiences with scramx alcohol monitoring technology in 100 alcohol treatment outpatients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017;178:417-24.
Kong G, Goldberg AL, Dallery J, Krishnan-Sarin S. An open-label pilot study of an intervention using mobile phones to deliver contingency management of tobacco abstinence to high school students. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2017;25:333-7.
Defulio A, Devoto A, Traxler H et al. Smartphone-based incentives for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med Rep 2021;21:101318.
Sinclair JMA, Burton A, Ashcroft R, Priebe S. Clinician and service user perceptions of implementing contingency management: a focus group study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011;119:56-63.
Kirby KC, Carpenedo CM, Stitzer ML et al. Is exposure to an effective contingency management intervention associated with more positive provider beliefs? J Subst Abuse Treat 2012;42:356-65.
Kurti AN, Davis D, Redner R et al. A review of the literature on remote monitoring technology in incentive-based interventions for health-related behavior change. Trans Issues Psychol Sci 2016;2:128-52.
Hämäläinen MD, Zetterström A, Winkvist M et al. Real-time monitoring using a breathalyzer-based ehealth system can identify lapse/relapse patterns in alcohol use disorder patients. Alcohol Alcohol 2018;53:368-75.
Dallery J, Kurti A, Erb P. A new frontier: integrating behavioral and digital technology to promote health behavior. Behavior Analyst 2015;38:19-49.
Getty CA, Morande A, Lynskey M, Weaver T, Metrebian N. Mobile telephone-delivered contingency management interventions promoting behaviour change in individuals with substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2019;114:1915-25.
Defulio A, Rzeszutek MJ, Furgeson J, Ryan S, Rezania S. A smartphone-smartcard platform for contingency management in an inner-city substance use disorder outpatient program. J Subst Abuse Treat 2020;120:108188.
Oluwoye O, Reneau H, Herron J et al. Pilot study of an integrated smartphone and breathalyzer contingency management intervention for alcohol use. J Addict Med 2020;14:193-8.
Dallery J, Stinson L, Bolívar H et al. Mmotiv8: a smartphone-based contingency management intervention to promote smoking cessation. J Appl Behav Anal 2021;54:38-53.
Kurti AN, Tang K, Bolivar HA et al. Smartphone-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy: a pilot study. Prev Med 2020;140:106201.
Maricich YA, Xiong X, Gerwien R et al. Real-world evidence for a prescription digital therapeutic to treat opioid use disorder. Cur Med Res Opin 2021;37:175-83.
Jarvis BP, Dallery J. Internet-based self-tailored deposit contracts to promote smoking reduction and abstinence. J Appl Behav Anal 2017;50:189-205.
Dallery J, Raiff BR, Kim SJ, Marsch LA, Stitzer M, Grabinski MJ. Nationwide access to an internet-based contingency management intervention to promote smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction 2017;112:875-83.
Dallery J, Meredith S, Jarvis B, Nuzzo PA. Internet-based group contingency management to promote smoking abstinence. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2015;23:176-83.
Mcquaid F, Bowden-Jones O, Weaver T. Contingency management for substance misuse. Br J Psychiatry 2007;190:270-5.
Festinger DS, Dugosh KL. Paying substance abusers in research studies: where does the money go? Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2012;38:43-8.
Festinger DS, Dugosh KL, Kirby KC, Seymour BL. Contingency management for cocaine treatment: cash vs. vouchers. J Subst Abuse Treatm 2014;47:168-74.
Petry NM, Alessi SM, Rash CJ, Barry D, Carroll KM. A randomized trial of contingency management reinforcing attendance at treatment: do duration and timing of reinforcement matter? J Consult Clin Psychol 2018;86:799-809.
Defulio A, Everly JJ, Leoutsakos JMS et al. Employment-based reinforcement of adherence to an FDA approved extended release formulation of naltrexone in opioid-dependent adults: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend 2012;120:48-54.