Cited by 91Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Combining cognitive behavioral therapy and contingency management to enhance their effects in treating cannabis dependence: less can be more, more or less.

Open access
Carroll, Kathleen M., Nich, Charla, LaPaglia, Donna M., Peters, Erica N., Easton, Caroline J., Petry, Nancy M.·2012·Addiction

Abstract

AIMS: To evaluate reciprocal enhancement (combining treatments to offset their relative weaknesses) as a strategy to improve cannabis treatment outcomes. Contingency management (CM) with reinforcement for homework completion and session attendance was used as a strategy to enhance cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) via greater exposure to skills training; CBT was used as a strategy to enhance durability of CM with rewards for abstinence. SETTING: Community-based out-patient treatment program in New Haven, Connecticut, USA. DESIGN: Twelve-week randomized clinical trial of four treatment conditions: CM for abstinence alone or combined with CBT, CBT alone or combined with CM with rewards for CBT session attendance and homework completion. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 127 treatment-seeking young adults (84.3% male, 81.1% minority, 93.7% referred by criminal justice system, average age 25.7 years). MEASUREMENTS: Weekly urine specimens testing positive for cannabis, days of cannabis use via the time-line follow-back method. FINDINGS: Within treatment, reinforcing homework and attendance did not significantly improve CBT outcomes, and the addition of CBT worsened outcomes when added to CM for abstinence (75.5 versus 57.1% cannabis-free urine specimens, F = 2.25, P = 0.02). The CM for abstinence condition had the lowest percentage of cannabis-negative urine specimens and the highest mean number of consecutive cannabis-free urine specimens (3.3, F = 2.33, P = 0.02). Attrition was higher in the CBT alone condition, but random effect regression analyses indicated this condition was associated with the greatest rate of change overall. Cannabis use during the 1-year follow-up increased most rapidly for the two enhanced groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combining contingency management and cognitive-behavioural therapy does not appear to improve success rates of treatment for cannabis dependence in clients involved with the criminal justice system.

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/j.1360-0443.2012.03877.x

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • A 12-session CBT intervention alone showed greater reduction in cannabis use frequency compared with the same CBT duration paired with abstinence-based CM or adherence-based CM over 12 months.

    “one study showed that, when delivered alone, a 12-session CBT intervention showed greater reduction in the frequency of cannabis use compared with the same CBT duration paired with abstinence-based CM or adherence-based CM over 12 months 42.”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [47]Sobell LC Sobell MB Litten RZ Allen J Timeline followback: a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption Measuring Alcohol Consumption: Psychosocial and Biological Methods 1992 Totowa, NJ Humana Press 41 72
  2. [50]First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Patient Edition 1995 Washington, DC American Psychiatric Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carroll, K. M., Nich, C., LaPaglia, D. M., Peters, E. N., Easton, C. J., & Petry, N. M.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • UConn Health (US)
Corresponding author
Carroll, Kathleen M.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05-08
Volume
107
Issue
9
Pages
1650-1659
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2164765166
Cited by
91
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Yale University
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P60AA003510)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R37DA015969, U10-DA-13038, P50DA009241, K05DA000457, R01DA019078, P50-DA-0-9241, U10DA013038, T32DA007238)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cannabis use disorder, contingency management, cognitive behavioral therapy, combination therapy, treatment discontinuation, young adults, criminal justice involvement, treatment durability
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Analysis of Variance, Marijuana Abuse, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Reward, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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