Cited by 111Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral and Psychological StudiesBehavioral Health and Interventions

A preliminary randomized controlled trial of contingency management for alcohol use reduction using a transdermal alcohol sensor

Open access
Barnett, Nancy P., Celio, Mark A., Tidey, Jennifer W., Murphy, James G., Colby, Suzanne M., Swift, Robert M.·2017·Addiction

Abstract

AIMS: We tested the efficacy of daily contingent reinforcement for reducing alcohol use compared with (yoked) non-contingent reinforcement (NR) using a transdermal alcohol sensor to detect alcohol use. DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled design with 1 baseline week, 3 intervention weeks and 1-month follow-up. SETTING: New England, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Heavy drinking adults (46.7% female) not seeking treatment were randomized to (1) an escalating schedule of cash reinforcement (CR; n = 15) for days on which alcohol was neither reported nor detected or (2) yoked NR (n = 15). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Reinforcement for CR participants started at $5 and increased $2 every subsequent day on which alcohol was not detected or reported, to a maximum of $17. Participants received no reinforcement for days on which alcohol use was detected or reported, and the reinforcer value was re-set to $5 the day after a drinking day. NR participants were yoked to the daily reinforcer value of an individual in the CR condition, in order of enrollment. Paired participants in CR and NR therefore received the same amount of money, but the amount for the NR participant was not behavior-related. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was percentage of days without sensor-detected drinking. Secondary outcomes were number of consecutive days with no detected drinking, peak transdermal alcohol concentration (TAC), self-reported drinks per week and drinking below NIH low-risk guidelines. FINDINGS: Controlling for baseline, CR had a higher percentage of days with no drinking detected (54.3%) than NR (31.2%) during intervention weeks [P = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.007-1.47]. The longest period of consecutive days with no drinking detected was 8.0 for CR versus 2.9 for NR (P = 0.03, d = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.08-1.61). Peak TAC during intervention showed a non-significant group difference (P = 0.20; d = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.00-1.18); a similar result was found for drinks per week (P = 0.12; d = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.00-1.30). Four times more participants in CR drank below NIH low-risk drinking guidelines during intervention than did participants in NR: 31.1 versus 7.1% (P = 0.07; d = 0.71; 95% CI = -0.04 to 1.46). At 1-month follow-up, the highest number of consecutive days without drinking (self-report) did not differ significantly between conditions (P = 0.26), but showed a medium effect size (d = 0.44; 95% CI = -0.32 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Cash incentives linked to a transdermal alcohol sensor can reduce heavy alcohol consumption while the incentives are in operation.

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.13767

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • In that study, the intervention group adhered to low-risk drinking guidelines four times more than the control group (31.1% vs 7.1%).

    “The intervention group adhered to low-risk drinking guidelines four times more than the control group (31.1% vs. 7.1%)”
  • In a study of 30 non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers, the contingency management group showed a higher percentage of days without detected drinking and a longer consecutive period of abstinence (8.0 days vs 2.9 days).

    “the contingency management group showed a higher percentage of days without detected drinking, with a longer consecutive period of abstinence (8.0 days vs. 2.9 days)”

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
Barnett, N. P., Celio, M. A., Tidey, J. W., Murphy, J. G., Colby, S. M., & Swift, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Memphis (US)
Corresponding author
Barnett, Nancy P.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-22
Volume
112
Issue
6
Pages
1025-1035
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2581389537
Cited by
111
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4
FWCI
7.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21015980)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
contingency management, alcohol consumption reduction, contingent reinforcement, heavy drinking, alcohol detection, alcoholism treatment, self-reported alcohol consumption, abstinence duration, relapse prevention
MeSH terms
Adult, Ethanol, Alcoholism, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, New England, Pilot Projects, Reinforcement, Psychology, Skin, Treatment Outcome, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Young Adult

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