Cited by 164Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentGambling Behavior and Treatments

Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders

Open access
McKay, James R.·2017·Addiction

Abstract

Background: Research has led to improvements in the effectiveness of interventions for substance use disorders (SUD), but for the most part progress has been modest, particularly with regard to longer‐term outcomes. Moreover, most individuals with SUD do not seek out treatment. Argument/analysis: This paper presents two recommendations on how to improve treatment engagement and long‐term outcomes for those with SUD. First, treatments should go beyond a focus on reducing or eliminating substance use to target greater access to and more time spent in experiences that will be enjoyable or otherwise rewarding to clients. Secondly, there must be sufficient incentives in the environment to justify the effort needed to sustain long‐term abstinence for individuals who often have limited access to such incentives. Conclusions: To increase rates of long‐term recovery from substance misuse, treatments should link clients to reinforcers that will make continued abstinence more appealing. This work needs to extend beyond interventions focused on the individual or family to include the local community and national policy in an effort to incentivize longer‐term recoveries more strongly.

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.13502

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?

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: 1

  1. [28]Koob GF Volkow ND Neurocircuitry of addiction Neuropsychopharmacology Reviews 2010 35 217 238 19710631 PMC2805560

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKay, J. R.
Affiliations
Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
McKay, James R.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-17
Volume
112
Issue
5
Pages
751-757
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2508479311
Cited by
164
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5
FWCI
15.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K24DA029062)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
substance use disorders, treatment engagement, long-term recovery, abstinence, reinforcers, treatment seeking, addiction policy
MeSH terms
Mental Health Recovery, Humans, Motivation, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Reward, 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