Cited by 881Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral and Psychological StudiesOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta‐analysis

Prendergast, Michael, Podus, Deborah, Finney, John, Greenwell, Lisa, Roll, John·2006·Addiction

Abstract

Aims To examine the effectiveness of contingency management (CM) techniques in treating substance use disorders (i.e. illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco). Design Meta‐analysis was used to determine the average effect size and potential moderators in 47 comparisons of the effectiveness of CM from studies based on a treatment–control group design and published between 1970 and 2002. Findings The mean effect size (ES) of CM was positive, with a magnitude of d = 0.42 using a fixed effects model. The magnitude of the ES declined over time, following treatment. CM was more effective in treating opiate use (d = 0.65) and cocaine use (d = 0.66), compared with tobacco (d = 0.31) or multiple drugs (d = 0.42). Larger effect sizes were associated with higher researcher involvement, earlier studies and shorter treatment duration. Conclusions Study findings suggest that CM is among the more effective approaches to promoting abstinence during the treatment of substance use disorders. CM improves the ability of clients to remain abstinent, thereby allowing them to take fuller advantage of other clinical treatment components.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01581.x

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Training effects tend to decay over time, with effect sizes generally largest at posttest and decreasing at follow-up.

    “We know that training effects tend to decay over time, with effect sizes generally being the largest at posttest and decreasing at follow-up”

    From Behavioral trainings and manipulations to reduce delay discounting: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Prendergast, Podus, Finney, Greenwell, & Roll, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prendergast, M., Podus, D., Finney, J., Greenwell, L., & Roll, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Washington State University Spokane (US)
Corresponding author
Prendergast, Michael
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-10-10
Volume
101
Issue
11
Pages
1546-1560
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2095695118
Cited by
877
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 45
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA017407, R01DA017084)
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, substance use disorders, abstinence, opiate use, cocaine use, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, treatment effectiveness, moderators of effect size
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Treatment Outcome, 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