Search

Background: Stimulant-related overdoses have increased dramatically, with almost 50% of overdoses in the United States now involving stimulants. Additionally, harm-reduction approaches are increasingly seen as key to reducing the negative impact of substance use. Contingency management (CM), the provision of financial incentives for abstinence, is the most effective treatment for stimulant use disorder, but historically has not been widely implemented. Many recent, large-scale implementation efforts have relied upon foundational CM protocols that may not sufficiently account for recent increases in the prevalence and lethality of stimulant use nor the growing preference for harm reduction versus abstinence-only frameworks., Argument: We argue the need to (1) consider whether and how CM protocols might be modified to address rising stimulant use and harm reduction frameworks and (2) make CM widely accessible so that it can reduce population-level stimulant use while ensuring that it is delivered with fidelity to its basic principles. Proposed changes include changing CM reinforcement schedules to emphasize treatment engagement and reductions in use in addition to abstinence, changing guidelines on the duration of and re-engagement in CM, investing in research on virtual CM, incentivizing providers and health systems to deliver CM, making it easier to purchase and use point-of-care drug screens, using direct-to-consumer marketing to increase demand for CM and adapting CM to the community in which it is being implemented., Conclusions: Our proposed modifications to contingency management (CM) protocols and accessibility may more effectively address rising stimulant use and align CM more closely with harm-reduction frameworks. Given the urgent need to reduce overdose deaths, developing and testing modified CM protocols may need to rely upon methods other than randomized controlled trials. Efforts to disseminate CM widely to reduce population-level stimulant use must be balanced with the need to maintain fidelity to CM's basic principles., (© 2024 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: Engagement in mental health treatment is low, which can lead to poor outcomes. We evaluated the efficacy of offering patients financial incentives to increase their mental health treatment engagement, also referred to as contingency management., Method: We meta-analyzed studies offering financial incentives for mental health treatment engagement, including increasing treatment attendance, medication adherence, and treatment goal completion. Analyses were run within a multilevel framework. All study designs were included, and sensitivity analyses were run including only randomized and high-quality studies., Results: About 80% of interventions incentivized treatment for substance use disorders. Financial incentives significantly increased treatment attendance (Hedges' g = 0.49, [0.33, 0.64], k = 30, I2 = 83.14), medication adherence (Hedges' g = 0.95, [0.47, 1.44], k = 6, I2 = 87.73), and treatment goal completion (Hedges' g = 0.61, [0.22, 0.99], k = 5, I2 = 60.55), including completing homework, signing treatment plans, and reducing problematic behavior., Conclusions: Financial incentives increase treatment engagement with medium to large effect sizes. We provide strong evidence for their effectiveness in increasing substance use treatment engagement and preliminary evidence for their effectiveness in increasing treatment engagement for other mental health disorders. Future research should prioritize testing the efficacy of incentivizing treatment engagement for mental health disorders aside from substance use. Research must also identify ways to incentivize treatment engagement that improve functioning and long-term outcomes and address ethical and systemic barriers to implementing these interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Individuals with psychiatric disorders often struggle to initiate and engage in treatment. Financial incentives improve treatment engagement, including treatment attendance, medication adherence, and abstinence from substance use. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently made the first large-scale, successful effort to implement incentive-based interventions in substance use disorder treatment. Health care systems, including the VA, can increase the impact of these interventions by extending them to target a range of psychiatric disorders, adapting them for specific clinical contexts, using insights from behavioral economics, and partnering with corporations to fund incentives and implement interventions.