Cited by 128Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPain Management and Opioid Use

Comparison of behavioral treatment conditions in buprenorphine maintenance

Open access
Ling, Walter, Hillhouse, Maureen, Ang, Alfonso, Jenkins, Jessica, Fahey, Jacqueline·2013·Addiction

Abstract

Background and aims: The C ontrolled S ubstances A ct requires physicians in the U nited S tates to provide or refer to behavioral treatment when treating opioid‐dependent individuals with buprenorphine; however, no research has examined the combination of buprenorphine with different types of behavioral treatments. This randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness of four behavioral treatment conditions provided with buprenorphine and medical management (MM) for the treatment of opioid dependence. Design: After a 2‐week buprenorphine induction/stabilization phase, participants were randomized to one of four behavioral treatment conditions provided for 16 weeks: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT = 53); contingency management (CM = 49); both CBT and CM (CBT + CM = 49); and no additional behavioral treatment (NT = 51). Setting: Study activities occurred at an out‐patient clinical research center in L os A ngeles, C alifornia, USA. Participants: Included were 202 male and female opioid‐dependent participants. Measurements: Primary outcome was opioid use, measured as a proportion of opioid‐negative urine results over the number of tests possible. Secondary outcomes include retention, withdrawal symptoms, craving, other drug use and adverse events. Findings: N o group differences in opioid use were found for the behavioral treatment phase (χ 2 = 1.25, P = 0.75), for a second medication‐only treatment phase, or at weeks 40 and 52 follow‐ups. Analyses revealed no differences across groups for any secondary outcome. Conclusion: There remains no clear evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy and contingency management reduce opiate use when added to buprenorphine and medical management in opiate users seeking treatment.

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/add.12266

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • Randomized trials of behavioral interventions such as CBT combined with pharmacotherapy to reduce illicit opioid use have had limited success.

    “While multiple RCTs have evaluated the effectiveness of behavioral interventions in reducing illicit opioid use, such as CBT in combination with pharmacological intervention, these studies had limited success (Fiellin et al., 2013; Ling et al., 2013; Weiss et al., 2018).”
  • Whether cognitive behavioral therapy has a direct benefit on craving is unclear, as results from studies to date have been inconsistent.

    “However, whether CBT has a direct benefit on craving is unclear, as results from studies to date have been inconsistent (128, 129).”
  • In a study by Ling et al., no significant differences in craving were observed between patients treated with buprenorphine and standard medical management or buprenorphine combined with either cognitive behavioral therapy or contingency management.

    “In a study by Ling et al. (128), no significant differences in craving were observed between patients treated with buprenorphine and standard medical management (limited counseling) or buprenorphine combined with either CBT (weekly counseling sessions, exercises, and homework) or contingency management.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ling, W., Hillhouse, M., Ang, A., Jenkins, J., & Fahey, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Hillhouse, Maureen
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-12
Volume
108
Issue
10
Pages
1788-1798
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2153599479
Cited by
128
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
9.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA020210, R01DA020210)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
buprenorphine maintenance, opioid use disorder, behavior therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, contingency management, medical management, opioid use, treatment retention, Controlled Substances Act
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Buprenorphine, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Narcotic Antagonists, Opioid-Related Disorders, Outpatients, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Los Angeles, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Opiate Substitution Treatment

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