Cited by 806Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Incentives Improve Outcome in Outpatient Behavioral Treatment of Cocaine Dependence

Higgins, Stephen T.·1994·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether incentives improved treatment outcome in ambulatory cocaine-dependent patients. METHOD: Forty cocaine-dependent adults were randomly assigned to behavioral treatment with or without an added incentive program. The behavioral treatment was based on the Community Reinforcement Approach and was provided to both groups. Subjects in the group with incentives received vouchers exchangeable for retail items contingent on submitting cocaine-free urine specimens during weeks 1 through 12 of treatment, while the group without incentives received no vouchers during that period. The two groups were treated the same during weeks 13 through 24. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of patients in the group with vouchers completed 24 weeks of treatment vs 40% in the group without vouchers (P = .03). Average durations of continuous cocaine abstinence documented via urinalysis during weeks 1 through 24 of treatment were 11.7 +/- 2.0 weeks in the group with vouchers vs 6.0 +/- 1.5 weeks in the group without vouchers (P = .03). At 24 weeks after treatment entry, the voucher group evidenced significantly greater improvement than the no-voucher group on the Drug scale of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), and only the voucher group showed significant improvement on the ASI Psychiatric scale. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives delivered contingent on submitting cocaine-free urine specimens significantly improve treatment outcome in ambulatory cocaine-dependent patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950070060011

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 806

Authors
Higgins, S. T.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Higgins, Stephen T.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
1994-07-01
Volume
51
Issue
7
Pages
568
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057263259
Cited by
806
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 28
FWCI
29.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r18da006113-05)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA08076, DA-06113, DA 06969, R01DA008076)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
cocaine dependence, incentive-based treatment, vouchers, community reinforcement approach, cocaine abstinence, treatment retention, Addiction Severity Index, urine drug testing, contingency management
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Behavior Therapy, Cocaine, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Reinforcement, Psychology, Severity of Illness Index, Substance Abuse Detection, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review