Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Contingency Management for Patients Receiving Medication for Opioid Use Disorder : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the efficacy of contingency management for treating comorbid behavioral problems in individuals receiving medication for opioid use disorder.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is contingency management associated with outcomes for treating comorbid substance use and treatment nonadherence among patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder?

          Findings

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis that included 74 randomized clinical trials and 10 444 adults receiving medication for opioid use disorder, the efficacy of contingency management was associated with abstinence from 4 types of substance use (psychomotor stimulants, polysubstance use, illicit opioids, and cigarettes) and improved treatment attendance and medication adherence.

          Meaning

          These results provide evidence supporting the use of contingency management for addressing common and serious clinical problems among patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is efficacious, but comorbid stimulant use and other behavioral health problems often undermine efficacy.

          Objective

          To examine the association of contingency management, a behavioral intervention wherein patients receive material incentives contingent on objectively verified behavior change, with end-of-treatment outcomes for these comorbid behavioral problems.

          Data Sources

          A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and reference sections of articles from inception through May 5, 2020. The following search terms were used: vouchers OR contingency management OR financial incentives.

          Study Selection

          Prospective experimental studies of monetary-based contingency management among participants receiving MOUD.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses ( PRISMA) reporting guideline, 3 independent investigators extracted data from included studies for a random-effects meta-analysis.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Primary outcome was the association of contingency management at end-of-treatment assessments with 6 clinical problems: stimulant use, polysubstance use, illicit opioid use, cigarette smoking, therapy attendance, and medication adherence. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to compute weighted mean effect size estimates (Cohen d) and corresponding 95% CIs separately for each clinical problem and collapsing across the 3 categories assessing abstinence and the 2 assessing treatment adherence outcomes.

          Results

          The search identified 1443 reports of which 74 reports involving 10 444 unique adult participants met inclusion criteria for narrative review and 60 for inclusion in meta-analyses. Contingency management was associated with end-of-treatment outcomes for all 6 problems examined separately, with mean effect sizes for 4 of 6 in the medium-large range (stimulants, Cohen d = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49-0.92]; cigarette use, Cohen d = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14]; illicit opioid use, Cohen d = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.30-0.86]; medication adherence, Cohen d = 0.75 [95% CI, 0.30-1.21]), and 2 in the small-medium range (polysubstance use, Cohen d = 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.62]; therapy attendance, d = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.65]). Collapsing across abstinence and adherence categories, contingency management was associated with medium effect sizes for abstinence (Cohen d = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69) and treatment adherence (Cohen d = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84) compared with controls.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          These results provide evidence supporting the use of contingency management in addressing key clinical problems among patients receiving MOUD, including the ongoing epidemic of comorbid psychomotor stimulant misuse. Policies facilitating integration of contingency management into community MOUD services are sorely needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references102

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions.

          Several groups have outlined methodologies for systematic literature reviews of the effectiveness of interventions. The Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) began in 1998. Its mandate is to provide research evidence to guide and support the Ontario Ministry of Health in outlining minimum requirements for public health services in the province. Also, the project is expected to disseminate the results provincially, nationally, and internationally. Most of the reviews are relevant to public health nursing practice. This article describes four issues related to the systematic literature reviews of the effectiveness of public health nursing interventions: (1) the process of systematically reviewing the literature, (2) the development of a quality assessment instrument, (3) the results of the EPHPP to date, and (4) some results of the dissemination strategies used. The eight steps of the systematic review process including question formulation, searching and retrieving the literature, establishing relevance criteria, assessing studies for relevance, assessing relevant studies for methodological quality, data extraction and synthesis, writing the report, and dissemination are outlined. Also, the development and assessment of content and construct validity and intrarater reliability of the quality assessment questionnaire used in the process are described. More than 20 systematic reviews have been completed. Content validity was ascertained by the use of a number of experts to review the questionnaire during its development. Construct validity was demonstrated through comparisons with another highly rated instrument. Intrarater reliability was established using Cohen's Kappa. Dissemination strategies used appear to be effective in that professionals report being aware of the reviews and using them in program planning/policymaking decisions. The EPHPP has demonstrated the ability to adapt the most current methods of systematic literature reviews of effectiveness to questions related to public health nursing. Other positive outcomes from the process include the development of a critical mass of public health researchers and practitioners who can actively participate in the process, and the work on dissemination has been successful in attracting external funds. A program of research in this area is being developed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence

            Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017

              US life expectancy has not kept pace with that of other wealthy countries and is now decreasing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Psychiatry
                JAMA Psychiatry
                JAMA Psychiatry
                JAMA Psychiatry
                American Medical Association
                2168-622X
                2168-6238
                4 August 2021
                October 2021
                4 August 2021
                : 78
                : 10
                : 1-11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington
                [3 ]Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont, Burlington
                [4 ]Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Corresponding Author: Stephen T. Higgins, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, 1 S Prospect St, UHC, MS482, Burlington, VT 05401 ( stephen.higgins@ 123456uvm.edu ).
                Accepted for Publication: May 29, 2021.
                Published Online: August 4, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1969
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Bolívar HA et al. JAMA Psychiatry.
                Author Contributions: Dr Bolívar and Mr DeSarno had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Bolívar, Coleman, Higgins.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Bolívar, Klemperer, Coleman, Higgins.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: DeSarno, Skelly, Higgins.
                Obtained funding: Higgins.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Bolívar, Klemperer.
                Supervision: Bolívar, Higgins.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Coleman, Higgins, and Klemperer have research support from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was supported by a Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence award from the National Institute on General Medical Sciences (P20GM103644) and Institutional Training award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA007242).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content of this report is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
                Meeting Presentation: Data from this project were presented at the National Institute of Health’s Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Meeting—Opioid Use in the Context of Polysubstance Use: Research Opportunities for Prevention, Treatment, and Sustained Recovery meeting; April 14, 2021; virtual and HEAL Principal Investigators Meeting; May 18, 2021; virtual.
                Additional Contributions: We extend deep appreciation to Tyler D. Nighbor, PhD, for his help developing and conducting the initial search for relevant literature. Dr Nighbor was not compensated.
                Article
                yoi210045
                10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1969
                8340014
                34347030
                85b29175-ab4e-491d-b141-42bedb52b09b
                Copyright 2021 Bolívar HA et al. JAMA Psychiatry.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 9 April 2021
                : 29 May 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute on General Medical Sciences
                Funded by: National Institute on Drug Abuse
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online First
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content131

                Cited by40

                Most referenced authors826