Delay discounting and substance use treatment outcomes: A systematic review focused on treatment outcomes and discounting methodology.
Abstinence
Behavioral economics
Monetary choice task
Relapse
Tobacco cessation
Journal
Journal of substance use and addiction treatment
ISSN: 2949-8759
Titre abrégé: J Subst Use Addict Treat
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918541186406676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
25
08
2022
revised:
07
02
2023
accepted:
07
04
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
19
4
2023
entrez:
18
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Delay discounting-the tendency to choose small, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards-is robustly associated with substance use. Delay discounting may present challenges in treatment for substance use disorders, as individuals with elevated discounting may struggle to wait for the long-term rewards that come from abstinence, which may yield poorer treatment outcomes. However, evidence on the role of discounting in treatment outcomes has been inconsistent. The study conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the prospective effects of delay discounting measured pre-treatment on substance use treatment outcomes, with a focus on characterizing findings across: 1) type of treatment outcome and 2) methodology used to assess and characterize discounting. A systematic literature search identified N = 17 studies that examined the association between delay discounting at treatment entry (pre-treatment) and substance use treatment outcomes. Findings were reported across the following substance use treatment outcomes: abstinence, relapse, use frequency and related problems, and treatment adherence. Findings regarding discounting methodology were reported by type of discounting measure (adjusting choice task, fixed choice task, or experiential task) and parameter used to characterize discounting (k, log transformed k (lnk), and area under the curve). Delay discounting at treatment entry was not consistently associated with substance use treatment outcomes when examined across all studies overall (47 %) or by treatment outcome (0-40 % for most outcomes). The majority of studies (64 %) that used an adjusting choice, computer-based task reported a significant association between discounting and treatment outcomes, whereas few studies that used a fixed choice or experiential task reported significant associations with treatment outcomes (0-25 %). Most studies (71 %) that used the lnk parameter to characterize discounting reported significant associations between discounting and a range of treatment outcomes. In contrast, few studies that used k or AUC (25-33 %) reported significant associations between discounting and treatment outcomes. When examined overall and by treatment outcome, evidence did not consistently indicate that delay discounting was prospectively associated with substance use treatment outcomes. However, delay discounting at treatment entry was more commonly associated with a variety of poorer treatment outcomes when researchers used more fine-grained methods to characterize discounting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37072099
pii: S2949-8759(23)00087-5
doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2023.209037
pmc: PMC10429418
mid: NIHMS1915921
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
209037Subventions
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AA027791
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Oct;80(5):876-86
pubmed: 22663899
Nicotine Tob Res. 2021 Aug 29;23(10):1636-1645
pubmed: 33772298
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007 Apr;15(2):176-86
pubmed: 17469941
BMJ. 2019 Jan 30;364:k4597
pubmed: 30700442
Span J Psychol. 2019 Mar 19;22:E9
pubmed: 30885283
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Aug;216(3):305-21
pubmed: 21373791
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Jun 1;123(1-3):15-21
pubmed: 22055012
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Oct 1;104(3):197-203
pubmed: 19570621
J Exp Anal Behav. 2015 Jan;103(1):125-40
pubmed: 25533393
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Dec 01;169:68-72
pubmed: 27776247
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003 May;11(2):131-8
pubmed: 12755457
Behav Res Methods. 2008 Nov;40(4):940-53
pubmed: 19001385
Addict Behav. 2014 Nov;39(11):1682-1689
pubmed: 24878037
Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Feb 1;69(3):260-5
pubmed: 20965498
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Personal Disord. 2015 Apr;6(2):182-98
pubmed: 25867841
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012 Jun;20(3):205-12
pubmed: 22182419
J Appl Behav Anal. 2013 Dec;46(4):750-64
pubmed: 24114862
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Feb;22(1):57-64
pubmed: 24417209
Addict Behav. 2004 Aug;29(6):1171-5
pubmed: 15236819
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000 Nov 1;60(3):259-66
pubmed: 11053760
Am J Addict. 2012 May-Jun;21(3):221-32
pubmed: 22494224
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013 Feb;21(1):46-54
pubmed: 23245197
J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Spring;34(1):101-22
pubmed: 11317983
Addict Behav. 2003 Aug;28(6):1167-73
pubmed: 12834659
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2017 Oct;25(5):363-372
pubmed: 29048185
Addiction. 2017 Jan;112(1):51-62
pubmed: 27450931
PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 14;11(10):e1001744
pubmed: 25314315
J Abnorm Psychol. 2012 Feb;121(1):151-9
pubmed: 21842965
Behav Processes. 2015 May;114:52-62
pubmed: 25796454
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Oct 1;118(1):12-8
pubmed: 21420253
Addict Behav. 2019 Mar;90:334-340
pubmed: 30508743
J Exp Anal Behav. 2016 Sep;106(2):145-55
pubmed: 27566660
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 Oct;146(4):447-54
pubmed: 10550495
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015 Mar;34(2):119-34
pubmed: 24684591
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 04;9(12):e112440
pubmed: 25474540
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012 Aug;20(4):302-9
pubmed: 22369670
Addict Behav. 2009 Dec;34(12):1036-41
pubmed: 19619948