"Setting people up for success and then failure" - health care and service providers' experiences of using prize-based contingency management

Should contingency management protocols and dissemination practices be modified to accommodate rising stimulant use and harm reduction frameworks?

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.

The reflections of health service providers on implementing contingency management for methamphetamine use disorder in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Contingency management (CM) is the most effective treatment for reducing methamphetamine use. We sought to understand why CM has not been taken up to manage methamphetamine use disorder in Australia.

METHODS

Six focus groups (4-8 participants per group) were conducted with health workers from agencies in Australia that provided drug-related health care to people who use methamphetamine. These agencies had no previous experience delivering CM for substance use. The potential acceptability and feasibility of implementing CM in their services were discussed.

RESULTS

Participants felt that it would be beneficial to have an evidence-based treatment for methamphetamine use disorder. This sentiment was offset by concerns that CM conflicted with a client-centred harm-reduction approach and that it dictated the goal of treatment as abstinence. It was also perceived as potentially coercive and seen to reify the power imbalance in the therapeutic relationship and therefore potentially reinforce stigma. There was also concern about the public's perception and the political acceptability of CM, who would fund CM, and the inequity of providing incentives only to clients with a methamphetamine use disorder. Some concerns could be ameliorated if the goals and structure of CM could be tailored to a client's needs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Many healthcare workers were keen to offer CM as an effective treatment option for people with methamphetamine use disorder, but CM would need to be sufficiently flexible to allow it to be tailored to client needs and implemented in a way that did not adversely impact the therapeutic relationship.

Perspectives and sentiments on contingency management from people who use methamphetamine

INTRODUCTION

Contingency management (CM) is currently the most efficacious treatment for methamphetamine use, yet it is rarely available in routine care. We examined the viewpoints of people who use methamphetamine on CM as a potential treatment for methamphetamine use disorder.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 30 Australians aged 18 years or older who had used methamphetamine at least weekly in the past 6 months.

RESULTS

Participants reported overall positive attitudes towards CM as a potential treatment option for methamphetamine use disorder. However, there was need for greater flexibility in meeting participant treatment goals (e.g., reduced use or complete abstinence), with particular concern about the viability of initiating abstinence, both in terms of the sufficiency of the initial financial incentive and managing withdrawal symptoms. There was strong interest in the use of digital technologies to provide remote CM, particularly around the convenience and flexibility this offered. Despite this, participants remained keen to access adjunctive treatment and support services but stressed that engagement with these additional services should not be mandatory. Marketing of CM will need to address preconceptions about drug-testing used in abstinence-based CM being punitive (especially urine testing) and its connotations with criminal justice interventions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Positive attitudes towards CM bode well for potential uptake should CM be made available in routine clinical practice. However, there is a need to adapt CM to ensure it is feasible and attractive to people who are seeking treatment for methamphetamine use disorder.

Client Views of Contingency Management in Gambling Treatment: A Thematic Analysis

Low levels of treatment access and poor retention among those with gambling problems suggests a need to improve treatment. Contingency management (CM) is a behavioural intervention involving the identification of target behaviours and the provision of incentives when targets are met. There exists a substantial evidence base for CM increasing abstinence and attendance in substance misuse treatment, but this has not been widely extended to gambling treatment setting. This study sought to explore the views of clients about CM for the treatment of problematic and disordered gambling. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 gambling treatment clients who were, or had previously been, engaged in treatment in Great Britain. Participants were provided with an explanation of CM, two hypothetical scenarios, and two structured questionnaires to facilitate discussion. Thematic analysis was used to interpret findings. Some participants felt that clients could manipulate CM while in treatment to obtain money to gamble, and that mechanisms of CM could trigger recovering clients into relapse. Participants also identified potential benefits of CM to achieve treatment goals, by enhancing motivation and engagement while in treatment, and helping bring people into treatment earlier. Gambling treatment clients broadly supported the use of incentives for treatment. CM is seen as a facilitator of extended engagement in treatment, and an encouragement for clients to make progress in the treatment process.

Rewarding recovery: the time is now for contingency management for opioid use disorder

Contingency management (i.e. rewarding people, often with money, for achieving their recovery goals) is backed by decades of empirical support yet remains highly underutilized. Rewards are rarely used in real-world clinical practice due to a number of concerns, including most notably, the apparent lack of innovation, as well as moral, philosophical, ethical, and economic concerns, and even federal rules meant to prevent illegal inducements in health care. Still, other opponents argue that some patients will try to "game" the system by simply doing whatever it takes to earn monetary rewards. This paper provides a succinct, up-to-date overview of the current evidence base for contingency management for opioid use disorder. Common barriers and solutions to implementation, as well as implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed. Although important, greater uptake of contingency management interventions is about more than legislation and regulations; it's about recognizing stigma, shaping attitudes, and increasing awareness. Provider involvement in advocacy efforts at all levels and collaboration involving academic-industry partnerships is necessary to advance the burgeoning digital health care space and improve outcomes for people with opioid use disorder. Key MessagesContingency management is highly effective but highly underutilized.Low uptake is largely attributed to a lack of innovation and moral, ethical, and economic concerns, among other barriers.Technology-enabled solutions and academic-industry partnerships are critical to advance opioid use disorder care.

The acceptability of financial incentives to support service engagement of adults experiencing homelessness and mental illness: a qualitative study of key stakeholder perspectives Authorship

PURPOSE

Evidence suggests financial incentives may effectively support service engagement among people experiencing homelessness, but literature related to their acceptability in this population is limited. This study used qualitative methods to explore stakeholder perspectives on the acceptability of using financial incentives to promote service engagement among homeless adults with mental illness.

METHODS

As part of a larger mixed-methods pragmatic trial of a community-based brief case management program in Toronto, Canada, twenty-two trial participants were purposefully recruited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews, and five service providers and seven key informants were purposefully recruited to participate in a focus group and interviews, respectively. Topics included perspectives of acceptability and lived experiences of using financial incentives to support engagement, health and well-being. Data collection occurred between April 2019 and December 2020. Data was audio-recorded and transcribed. Coding and interpretation of data was informed by grounded theory and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Stakeholders held diverse views on the acceptability of financial incentives to promote service engagement in this population. Main themes across groups included moralizing recipient motivation; tensions in how best to define and respect autonomy; and consideration of potential unintended consequences for both individuals and the service system. Significant group differences within some themes emerged.

CONCLUSION

Results highlight ongoing debates over using financial incentives to facilitate service engagement among adults experiencing homelessness and mental illness. Differences in stakeholder perspectives suggest the need for person-centredness in health and research settings, and balancing theoretical risks and long-term goals with likely potential for immediate benefits.

Acceptability and Usability of a Reward-Based Mobile App for Opioid Treatment Settings: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Contingency management is an evidence-based yet underutilized approach for opioid use disorder (OUD). Reasons for limited adoption in real-world practice include ethical, moral, and philosophical concerns regarding use of monetary incentives, and lack of technological innovation. In light of surging opioid overdose deaths, there is a need for development of technology-enabled solutions leveraging the power of contingency management in a way that is viewed by both patients and providers as acceptable and feasible.

OBJECTIVE

This mixed methods pilot study sought to determine the perceived acceptability and usability of PROCare Recovery, a reward-based, technology-enabled recovery monitoring smartphone app designed to automate contingency management by immediately delivering micropayments to patients for achieving recovery goals via smart debit card with blocking capabilities.

METHODS

Participants included patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD (n=10) and licensed prescribers (n=5). Qualitative interviews were conducted by 2 PhD-level researchers via video conferencing to explore a priori hypotheses. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted and synthesized into major themes.

RESULTS

Participants were overwhelmingly in favor of microrewards (eg, US $1) to incentivize treatment participation (up to US $150 monthly). Participants reported high acceptability of the planned debit card spending restrictions (blocking cash withdrawals and purchases at bars or liquor stores, casinos or online gambling). Quantitative data revealed a high level of perceived usability of the PROCare Recovery app.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers alike appear receptive to microfinancial incentives in standard OUD treatment practices. Further pilot testing of PROCare is underway to determine acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness in a rigorous randomized controlled trial.

What are the ethical implications of using prize-based contingency management in substance use? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The area of substance use is notable for its early uptake of incentives and wealth of research on the topic. This is particularly true for prize-based contingency management (PB-CM), a particular type of incentive that uses a fishbowl prize-draw design. Given that PB-CM interventions are gaining momentum to address the dual public health crises of opiate and stimulant use in North America and beyond, it is imperative that we better understand and critically analyze their implications.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review paper is to identify the characteristics of PB-CM interventions for people who use substances and explore ethical implications documented in the literature as well as emerging ethical implications that merit further consideration.

METHODS

The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used in conjunction with Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to guide this scoping review. We completed a two-pronged analysis of 52 research articles retrieved through a comprehensive search across three key scholarly databases. After extracting descriptive data from each article, we used 9 key domains to identify characteristics of the interventions followed by an analysis of ethical implications.

RESULTS

We analyzed the characteristics of PB-CM interventions which were predominantly quantitative studies aimed at studying the efficacy of PB-CM interventions. All of the interventions used a prize-draw format with a classic magnitude of 50%. Most of the interventions combined both negative and positive direction to reward processes, behaviors, and/or outcomes. One ethical implication was identified in the literature: the risk of gambling relapse. We also found three emerging ethical implications by further analyzing participant characteristics, intervention designs, and potential impact on the patient-provider relationship. These implications include the potential deceptive nature of PB-CM, the emphasis placed on the individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health, and failures to address vulnerability and power dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review offers important insights into the ethics on PB-CM and its implications for research ethics, clinical ethics, and public health ethics. Additionally, it raises important questions that can inform future research and dialogues to further tease out the ethical issues associated with PB-CM.

Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Contingency Management for Patients with Both Psychotic Disorders and Substance Use Disorders

Background: Substance use disorders (SUD) are highly prevalent among psychotic patients and are associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes. Effective interventions for this clinical population are scarce and challenging. Contingency management (CM) is one of the most evidence-based treatments for SUD’s, however, a meta-analysis of the effect of CM in patients with a dual diagnosis of psychotic disorder and SUD has not been performed. Methods: We searched PubMed and PsycINFO databases up to December 2020. Results: Five controlled trials involving 892 patients were included. CM is effective on abstinence rates, measured by the number of self-reported days of using after intervention (95% CI −0.98 to −0.06) and by the number of negative breath or urine samples after intervention (OR 2.13; 95% CI 0.97 to 4.69) and follow-up (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.08). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows a potential effect of CM on abstinence for patients with SUD and (severe) psychotic disorders, although the number of studies is limited. Additional longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the sustained effectivity of CM and give support for a larger clinical implementation of CM within services targeting these vulnerable co-morbid patients.