CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral and Psychological StudiesGambling Behavior and Treatments

Using contingency management procedures to reduce at-risk drinking in heavy drinkers

Open access
Dougherty, Donald M., Lake, Sarah L., Hill-Kapturczak, Nathalie, Liang, Yuanyuan, Karns, Tara E., Mullen, Jillian, Roache, John D.·2015·Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
DOI 10.1111/acer.12687PMC PMC5607021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatments for alcohol use disorders typically have been abstinence based, but harm reduction approaches that encourage drinkers to alter their drinking behavior to reduce the probability of alcohol-related consequences, have gained in popularity. This study used a contingency management procedure to determine its effectiveness in reducing alcohol consumption among heavy drinkers. METHODS: Eighty-two nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers (ages 21 to 54, M = 30.20) who did not meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence participated in the study. The study had 3 phases: (i) an Observation phase (4 weeks) where participants drank normally; (ii) a Contingency Management phase (12 weeks) where participants were paid $50 weekly for not exceeding low levels of alcohol consumption as measured by transdermal alcohol concentrations, <0.03 g/dl; and (iii) a Follow-up phase (12 weeks) where participants (n = 66) returned monthly for 3 months to self-report drinking after the contingencies were removed. Transdermal alcohol monitors were used to verify meeting contingency requirements; all other analyses were conducted on self-reported alcohol use. RESULTS: On average 42.3% of participants met the contingency criteria and were paid an average of $222 during the Contingency Management phase, with an average $1,998 in total compensation throughout the study. Compared to the Observation phase, the percent of any self-reported drinking days significantly decreased from 59.9 to 40.0% in the Contingency Management and 32.0% in the Follow-up phases. The percent of self-reported heavy drinking days reported also significantly decreased from 42.4% in the Observation phase to 19.7% in the Contingency Management phase, which was accompanied by a significant increase in percent days of self-reported no (from 40.1 to 60.0%) and low-level drinking (from 9.9 to 15.4%). Self-reported reductions in drinking either persisted, or became more pronounced, during the Follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management was associated with a reduction in self-reported episodes of heavy drinking among nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers. These effects persisted even after incentives were removed, indicating the potential utility of contingency management as a therapeutic intervention to reduce harmful patterns of drinking.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acer.12687

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Givvon M Williams JBW 2001 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition (SCID-I/NP) New York State Psychiatric Institute New York
  2. Sobell LC Sobell MB 1992 Timeline Followback: A technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption Measuring Alcohol Consumption: Psychosocial and Biological Methods Allen J Litten RZ 41 72 Humana Press New Jersey

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Hill-Kapturczak, N., Liang, Y., Karns, T. E., Mullen, J., & Roache, J. D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • Department of Psychiatry ; The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; San Antonio Texas
Corresponding author
Dougherty, Donald M.
ORCID
Venue
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
743-751
ISSN
0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/acer.12687
PMC
PMC5607021
OpenAlex
W2013595983
Cited by
45
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 153 d)
Locations
  • Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA14988)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA031115)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
contingency management, hazardous drinking, heavy drinking, harm reduction, alcoholism treatment, financial incentives, abstinence, drinking behavior change
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Behavior Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Harm Reduction, Young Adult, Self Report

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