Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Nov;114(11):1915-1925.
doi: 10.1111/add.14725. Epub 2019 Jul 27.

Mobile telephone-delivered contingency management interventions promoting behaviour change in individuals with substance use disorders: a meta-analysis

Carol-Ann Getty  1   2 , Ana Morande  1   2 , Michael Lynskey  1   2 , Tim Weaver  1   2 , Nicola Metrebian  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Mobile telephone-delivered contingency management interventions promoting behaviour change in individuals with substance use disorders: a meta-analysis

Carol-Ann Getty et al. Addiction. 2019 Nov.

Abstract

Background/aims: Contingency management (CM) interventions have gained considerable interest due to their success in the treatment of addiction. However, their implementation can be resource-intensive for clinical staff. Mobile telephone-based systems might offer a low-cost alternative. This approach could facilitate remote monitoring of behaviour and delivery of the reinforcer and minimize issues of staffing and resources. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of mobile telephone-delivered CM interventions to promote abstinence (from drugs, alcohol and tobacco), medication adherence and treatment engagement among individuals with substance use disorders.

Design: A systematic search of databases (PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase) for randomized controlled trials and within-subject design studies (1995-2019). The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO.

Setting: All included studies originated in the United states.

Participants: Seven studies were found, including 222 participants; two targeted alcohol abstinence among frequent drinkers and four targeted smoking cessation (in homeless veterans and those with post-traumatic stress disorder). One targeted medication adherence.

Measures: The efficacy of CM to increase alcohol and nicotine abstinence was compared with control using several outcomes; percentage of negative samples (PNS), quit rate (QR) and longest duration abstinent (LDA) at the end of the intervention.

Findings: The random-effects meta-analyses produced pooled effect sizes of; PNS [d = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-1.25], LDA (d = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.69-1.46) and QR (d = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.27-0.66), demonstrating better outcomes across the CM conditions. Most of the studies were rated as of moderate quality. 'Fail-safe N' computations for PNS indicated that 50 studies would be needed to produce a non-significant overall effect size. None could be calculated for QR and LDA due to insufficient number of studies.

Conclusion: Mobile telephone-delivered contingency management performs significantly better than control conditions in reducing tobacco and alcohol use among adults not in treatment for substance use disorders.

Keywords: Contingency management; drug use; financial incentives; mobile telephone; remote monitoring; substance use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for percentage negative samples by end of treatment for all substances [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for quit rate by end of treatment for nicotine [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot for longest duration abstinent for all substances [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ainscough T. S., McNeill A., Strang J., Calder R., Brose L. S. Contingency management interventions for non‐prescribed drug use during treatment for opiate addiction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017; 178: 318–339. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prendergast M., Podus D., Finney J., Greenwell L., Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta‐analysis. Addiction 2006; 101: 1546–1560. - PubMed
    1. Lussier J. P., Heil S. H., Mongeon J. A., Badger G. J., Higgins S. T. A meta‐analysis of voucher‐based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction 2006; 101: 192–203. - PubMed
    1. Griffith J. D., Rowan‐Szal G. A., Roark R. R., Simpson D. D. Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: a meta‐analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 58: 55–66. - PubMed
    1. Higgins S. T., Silverman K. Contingency Management in Substance Abuse Treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008.

Publication types