» Articles » PMID: 17907858

Randomized Trial of Prize-based Reinforcement Density for Simultaneous Abstinence from Cocaine and Heroin

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2007 Oct 3
PMID 17907858
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To examine the effect of reinforcer density in prize-based abstinence reinforcement, heroin/cocaine users (N = 116) in methadone maintenance (100 mg/day) were randomly assigned to a noncontingent control group (NonC) or to 1 of 3 groups that earned prize draws for abstinence: manual drawing with standard prize density (MS) or computerized drawing with standard (CS) or high (CH) density. Probabilities (prizes/draw) were standard (50%) and high (78%); prize density was double blind. Mean prize values were CH, $286; CS, $167; MS, $139; and NonC, $171. Outcomes were % opioid/cocaine-negative urines during the 12-week intervention and then 8 weeks postintervention as well as diagnosis of dependence up to 6 months poststudy. CH had significantly more negative specimens than did NonC during intervention and had more than all groups during postintervention treatment: Mean % negative (95% confidence interval) during postintervention treatment adjusted for baseline drug use and dropout were CH, 55% (14%-90%); CS, 7% (1%-27%); MS, 4% (1%-12%); and NonC, 3% (1%-10%). Current cocaine dependence diagnoses after treatment were significantly lower in contingent compared with noncontingent groups. Computerized drawing with higher-density prizes enhanced reduction of cocaine use; abstinence reinforcement had long-term therapeutic benefits.

Citing Articles

Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder.

Minozzi S, Saulle R, Amato L, Traccis F, Agabio R Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 2:CD011866.

PMID: 38357958 PMC: 10867898. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011866.pub3.


What are the ethical implications of using prize-based contingency management in substance use? A scoping review.

Gagnon M, Payne A, Guta A Harm Reduct J. 2021; 18(1):82.

PMID: 34348710 PMC: 8335458. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-021-00529-w.


Comparison of Treatments for Cocaine Use Disorder Among Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bentzley B, Han S, Neuner S, Humphreys K, Kampman K, Halpern C JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(5):e218049.

PMID: 33961037 PMC: 8105751. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.8049.


Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

De Crescenzo F, Ciabattini M, DAlo G, De Giorgi R, Del Giovane C, Cassar C PLoS Med. 2018; 15(12):e1002715.

PMID: 30586362 PMC: 6306153. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002715.


The Effects of Cannabinoids on Executive Functions: Evidence from Cannabis and Synthetic Cannabinoids-A Systematic Review.

Cohen K, Weinstein A Brain Sci. 2018; 8(3).

PMID: 29495540 PMC: 5870358. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci8030040.


References
1.
Willenbring M, Hagedorn H, Postier A, Kenny M . Variations in evidence-based clinical practices in nine United States Veterans Administration opioid agonist therapy clinics. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004; 75(1):97-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.01.009. View

2.
Amass L, Kamien J . A tale of two cities: financing two voucher programs for substance abusers through community donations. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004; 12(2):147-55. PMC: 1255912. DOI: 10.1037/1064-1297.12.2.147. View

3.
Katz J . A comparison of responding maintained under second-order schedules of intramuscular cocaine injection or food presentation in squirrel monkeys. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979; 32(3):419-31. PMC: 1332982. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-419. View

4.
Kirby K, Benishek L, Dugosh K, Kerwin M . Substance abuse treatment providers' beliefs and objections regarding contingency management: implications for dissemination. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006; 85(1):19-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.03.010. View

5.
Silverman K, Wong C, Montoya I, Schuster C, Preston K . Broad beneficial effects of cocaine abstinence reinforcement among methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998; 66(5):811-24. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.5.811. View