Contingency management for treatment attendance: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Treatment providers have applied contingency management (CM) treatment, an intervention that often rewards individuals for drug abstinence (i.e., ABS CM), to treatment engagement as well. However, we know little about the magnitude of treatment effects when providers target attendance behaviors (i.e., ATT CM).Methods This study conducted a systematic search to identify studies that included ATT CM, either in isolation or in combination with ABS CM. The study used meta-analysis to estimate the effect size of ATT CM and ABS CM + ATT CM on treatment attendance and drug abstinence. We identified a total of 10 studies including 12 CM treatments (6 ATT CM and 6 ABS CM + ATT CM) with 1841 participants.Results Results indicated a moderate effect (d = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.25, 0.69]) of ATT CM on attendance relative to non-reward active comparison conditions. Frequency of rewards was significantly associated with larger effect sizes. Results also indicated a small effect (d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.12, 0.33]) of ATT CM on abstinence outcomes relative to nonreward comparisons, p < 0.001. The study found no significant differences in attendance or abstinence between ATT CM and ABS CM + ATT CM (p's > 0.05).Conclusion Overall, the results supported ATT CM for increasing treatment engagement, with smaller effects on abstinence. Effects on abstinence were smaller than those observed in prior meta-analyses focused on ABS CM. No significant differences existed in attendance or abstinence outcomes between ATT CM and ABS + ATT CM. However, future studies are needed to experimentally compare ABS CM + ATT CM to ABS CM, and ATT CM to determine additive effects. Clinics implementing CM should consider the differential effects between ATT CM and ABS CM when selecting target behavior(s).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Some published protocols and introductory trainings exist for voucher- and prize-based contingency management.
“Some published protocols exist for voucher-and prize-based interventions, 59,60 as well as some introductory trainings.”
From The ASAM/AAAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Stimulant Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [59]
The Results (Study characteristics; page unavailable) describe voucher- and prize-based contingency-management protocols used in published studies. The Discussion describes a 1.5-day training and training for initial proficiency. The paper does not establish that standalone intervention protocols or introductory training materials were published. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 75
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, & Rothstein HR (2009). Chapter 25: Multiple comparisons within a study (pp. 239– 242). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
- Higgins JP, & Green S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons.
- National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (3rd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Onken LS, Blaine JD, & Boren JJ (1997). Beyond the therapeutic alliance: Keeping the drug-dependent individual in treatment (Vol. 165). US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Division of Clinical and Services Research.
- Authors
- Pfund, R. A., Ginley, M. K., Rash, C. J., & Zajac, K.
- Affiliations
- East Tennessee State University (US)
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pfund, Rory A.
- Venue
- Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-02
- Volume
- 133
- Pages
- 108556
- ISSN
- 0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8702584
- OpenAlex
- W3174182003
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 339 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA034879, R01DA047183)
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P50AA027055, R01AA023502, T32AA018108)
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD013550)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Keywords
- contingency management, treatment attendance, treatment engagement, drug abstinence, substance use disorders, treatment retention
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Therapy, Humans, Reward
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