Community Reinforcement Approach + Vouchers

Substance Use Prevention or Treatment Promising

Community Reinforcement Approach + Vouchers (CRA + Vouchers) is designed to treat adults with cocaine use issues through therapy, skills training, and incentives for drug abstinence and treatment retention. CRA + Vouchers has two main components:

 

(1) the CRA component is an intensive psychosocial therapy intended to help patients make lifestyle changes and develop drug-refusal skills and strategies; and,

 

(2) the voucher component provides incentives for remaining in treatment and sustaining cocaine abstinence.

 

In the CRA component, treatment goals are co-developed by the therapist and patient based on patient needs and priorities. Patients can receive therapy and skills training in goal setting, drug avoidance and refusal, time management, problem-solving, vocational counseling, social skills and relationships, relaxation, sleep hygiene, and HIV/AIDS prevention.

 

In the voucher component, points are earned for negative drug test results. Patients earn more points for each consecutive negative test and lose points after a positive test. Patients redeem voucher points for desired items that align with treatment goals and increase prosocial drug-free activities. Items can range from physical items to experiences, including fishing licenses, restaurant gift certificates, camera equipment, and continuing education materials. These items are purchased by staff at the request of the patient.


CRA + Vouchers is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.


Date Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 1.0): Mar 2022


Sources

The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information were informed by the following sources: the program or service manual, the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, and the studies reviewed.


This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0

Target Population

CRA + Vouchers is designed to treat adults with cocaine use issues. The program may also be implemented with adults with other substance use issues.

Dosage

CRA + Vouchers is typically delivered over 24 weeks. Therapists meet individually with patients for 1-hour sessions. These sessions happen twice per week for the first 12 weeks and once per week for the last 12 weeks. Trained staff administer urine tests 3 times per week for the first 12 weeks and 2 times per week for the last 12 weeks.

Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

CRA + Vouchers is delivered in an outpatient clinical setting.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

  • Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office

Education, Certifications and Training

Therapists must have at least a master's degree, have a working knowledge of behavioral principles, and follow clinical guidelines focused on flexibility, empathy, directive but collaborative interactions with patients, and social reinforcement. Staff administering drug tests must have at least a bachelor’s degree and should have received training in the collection and analysis of urine.

It is recommended that therapists receive supervision from a licensed psychologist trained in substance abuse treatment and behavior analysis.

Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Budney, A. J., & Higgins, S. T. (1998). A Community Reinforcement plus Vouchers Approach: Treating cocaine addiction (Therapy Manuals for Drug Addiction, Manual 2). National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Available languages

The CRA + Vouchers manual is available in English.


Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.

Results of Search and Review Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Community Reinforcement Approach + Vouchers
Identified in Search 38
Eligible for Review 3
Rated High 1
Rated Moderate 0
Rated Low 2
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm 0

Outcome Effect Size Effect Size more info
and Implied Percentile Effect Implied Percentile Effect more info 		N of Studies (Findings) N of Participants Summary of Findings
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use 0.68
25 		1 (8) 39 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 5
Unfavorable: 0

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.

Outcome Effect Size Effect Size more info
and Implied Percentile Effect Implied Percentile Effect more info 		N of Studies (Findings) N of Participants Summary of Findings Months after treatment
when outcome measured Months after treatment when outcome measured more info
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use 0.68
25 		1 (8) 39 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 5
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 12391 - Community Reinforcement Approach and Voucher Incentive vs. Standard Treatment Control (Bickel, 1997)
Longest Opioid Abstinence Period: 4 or More Weeks 0.89 *
31 		- 39 - 0
Any Barbituate Use -0.61
-22 		- 39 - 0
Any Benzodiazepine Use -0.76
-27 		- 39 - 0
Any Cannabinoid Use 0.70
25 		- 39 - 0
Any Cocaine Use -0.45
-17 		- 39 - 0
Longest Opioid Abstinence Period: 8 or More Weeks 1.52 *
43 		- 39 - 0
Longest Opioid Abstinence Period: 12 or More Weeks 1.69 *
45 		- 39 - 0
Longest Opioid Abstinence Period: 16 or More Weeks 2.49
49 		- 39 - 0

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents.

Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.

Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.

The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.


The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.


For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings
Study Location Study Location more info Study Year Study Year more info Age or Grade-level Age or Grade-level more info Race, Ethnicity, Nationality Race, Ethnicity, Nationality more info Gender Gender more info Populations of Interest* Populations of Interest more info Household Socioeconomic Status Household Socioeconomic Status more info
Study 12391 - Community Reinforcement Approach and Voucher Incentive vs. Standard Treatment Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Vermont, USA -- Mean age: 34 years; Age range: 19 - 45 years 97% White 64% Male
36% Female 		100% Opioid-dependent patients $222 Mean weekly income (in dollars)

“--” indicates information not reported in the study.


* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.


Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 12391

Bickel, W. K., Amass, L., Higgins, S. T., Badger, G. J., & Esch, R. A. (1997). Effects of adding behavioral treatment to opioid detoxification with buprenorphine. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 803-810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.5.803

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)


Studies Rated Low

Study 12408

Higgins, S. T., Budney, A. J., Bickel, W. K., Badger, G. J., Foerg, F. E., & Ogden, D. (1995). Outpatient behavioral treatment for cocaine dependence: One-year outcome. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 3(2), 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.3.2.205

Higgins, S. T., Budney, A. J., Bickel, W. K., Hughes, J. R., Foerg, F., & Badger, G. (1993). Achieving cocaine abstinence with a behavioral approach. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(5), 763-769. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.5.763

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 12392

Bickel, W. K., Marsch, L. A., Buchhalter, A. R., & Badger, G. J. (2008). Computerized behavior therapy for opioid-dependent outpatients: A randomized controlled trial. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(2), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.16.2.132

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.


Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 12393   

Brooks, A. C., Ryder, D., Carise, D., & Kirby, K. C. (2010). Feasibility and effectiveness of computer-based therapy in community treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 39(3), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.06.003

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12394   

Budney, A. J., Higgins, S. T., Radonovich, K. J., & Novy, P. L. (2000). Adding voucher-based incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes during treatment for marijuana dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1051-1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1051 

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12395

Budney, A. J., Moore, B. A., Rocha, H. L., & Higgins, S. T. (2006). Clinical trial of abstinence-based vouchers and cognitive-behavioral therapy for cannabis dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(2), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.2.307

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12396

Campbell, A. N. C., Nunes, E. V., Matthews, A. G., Stitzer, M., Miele, G. M., Polsky, D., Turrigiano, E., Walters, S., McClure, E. A., Kyle, T. L., Wahle, A., Van Veldhuisen, P., Goldman, B., Babcock, D., Stabile, P. Q., Winhusen, T., & Ghitza, U. E. (2014). Internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: A multisite randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(6), 683-690. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13081055

Campbell, A. N. C., Miele, G. M., Nunes, E. V., McCrimmon, S., & Ghitza, U. E. (2012). Web-based, psychosocial treatment for substance use disorders in community treatment settings. Psychological Services, 9(2), 212-214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025968

Campbell, A. N., Nunes, E. V., Miele, G. M., Matthews, A., Polsky, D., Ghitza, U. E., Turrigiano, E., Bailey, G. L., VanVeldhuisen, P., Chapdelaine, R., Froias, A., Stitzer, M. L., Carroll, K. M., Winhusen, T., Clingerman, S., Perez, L., McClure, E., Goldman, B., & Crowell, A. R. (2012). Design and methodological considerations of an effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention: An example from the NIDA Clinical Trials Network. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 33(2), 386-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2011.11.001

Campbell, A. N., Nunes, E. V., Pavlicova, M., Hatch-Maillette, M., Hu, M.-C., Bailey, G. L., Sugarman, D. E., Miele, G. M., Rieckmann, T., Shores-Wilson, K., Turrigiano, E., & Greenfield, S. F. (2015). Gender-based outcomes and acceptability of a computer-assisted psychosocial intervention for substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 53, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.12.006

Campbell, A. N. C., Montgomery, L., Sanchez, K., Pavlicova, M., Hu, M., Newville, H., Weaver, L., & Nunes, E. V. (2017). Racial/ethnic subgroup differences in outcomes and acceptability of an Internet-delivered intervention for substance use disorders. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 16(4), 460-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2017.1300550

Lévesque, A., Campbell, A. N. C., Pavlicova, M., Hu, M.-C., Walker, R., McClure, E. A., Ghitza, U. E., Bailey, G., Stitzer, M., & Nunes, E. V. (2017). Coping strategies as a mediator of internet-delivered psychosocial treatment: Secondary analysis from a NIDA CTN multisite effectiveness trial. Addictive Behaviors, 65, 74-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.09.012

Marino, L. A., Campbell, A. N. C., Pavlicova, M., Hu, M., & Nunes, E. V. (2019). Social functioning outcomes among individuals with substance use disorders receiving internet-delivered community reinforcement approach. Substance Use & Misuse, 54(7), 1067-1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2018.1528458

Murphy, S. M., Campbell, A. N. C., Ghitza, U. E., Kyle, T. L., Bailey, G. L., Nunes, E. V., & Polsky, D. (2016). Cost-effectiveness of an internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: Data from a multisite randomized controlled trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 161, 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.021

Tofighi, B., Campbell, A., Pavlicova, M., Hu, M. C., Lee, J. D., & Nunes, E. V. (2016). Recent internet use and associations with clinical outcomes among patients entering addiction treatment involved in a web-delivered psychosocial intervention study. Journal of Urban Health, 93(5), 871-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0077-2

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12397   

Carroll, K. M., Ball, S. A., Nich, C., O'Connor, P. G., Eagan, D. A., Frankforter, T. L., Triffleman, E. G., Shi, J., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2001). Targeting behavioral therapies to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: Efficacy of contingency management and significant other involvement. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(8), 755-761. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.58.8.755

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12398

Carroll, K. M., Sinha, R., Nich, C., Babuscio, T., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2002). Contingency management to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: A randomized clinical trial of reinforcement magnitude. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10(1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.10.1.54

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12399   

Carroll, K. M., Easton, C. J., Nich, C., Hunkele, K. A., Neavins, T. M., Sinha, R., Ford, H. L., Vitolo, S. A., Doebrick, C. A., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2006). The use of contingency management and motivational/skills-building therapy to treat young adults with marijuana dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 955-966. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.955

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12400   

Chopra, M. P., Landes, R. D., Gatchalian, K. M., Jackson, L. C., Buchhalter, A. R., Stitzer, M. L., Marsch, L. A., & Bickel, W. K. (2009). Buprenorphine medication versus voucher contingencies in promoting abstinence from opioids and cocaine. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17(4), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016597

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12401

Christensen, D. R., Landes, R. D., Jackson, L., Marsch, L. A., Mancino, M. J., Chopra, M. P., & Bickel, W. K. (2014). Adding an internet-delivered treatment to an efficacious treatment package for opioid dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(6), 964-972. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037496

Maricich, Y. A., Bickel, W. K., Marsch, L. A., Gatchalian, K., Botbyl, J., & Luderer, H. F. (2020). Safety and efficacy of a prescription digital therapeutic as an adjunct to buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(2), 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2020.1846022

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12402   

García-Fernández, G., Secades-Villa, R., García-Rodríguez, O., Álvarez-López, H., Fernández-Hermida, J. R., Fernández-Artamendi, S., & Higgins, S. T. (2011). Long-term benefits of adding incentives to the community reinforcement approach for cocaine dependence. European Addiction Research, 17(3), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1159/000324848

García‐Fernández, G., Secades‐Villa, R., García‐Rodríguez, O., Sánchez‐Hervás, E., Fernández‐Hermida, J. R., & Higgins, S. T. (2011). Adding voucher‐based incentives to community reinforcement approach improves outcomes during treatment for cocaine dependence. The American Journal on Addictions, 20(5), 456-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00154.x

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12403

García-Fernández, G., Secades-Villa, R., García-Rodríguez, O., Peña-Suárez, E., & Sánchez-Hervás, E. (2013). Contingency management improves outcomes in cocaine-dependent outpatients with depressive symptoms. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(6), 482-489. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033995

Secades-Villa, R., García-Fernández, G., Peña-Suárez, E., García-Rodríguez, O., Sánchez-Hervás, E., & Fernández-Hermida, J. R. (2013). Contingency management is effective across cocaine-dependent outpatients with different socioeconomic status. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(3), 349-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.018           

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12404

García-Rodríguez, O., Secades-Villa, R., Rodríguez, H. Á., Rodríguez, A. R., & Ramón, J. (2007). Effect of incentives on retention in an outpatient treatment programme for cocaine addicts. Psicothema, 19(1), 134-139.        

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12405

Garcia-Rodriguez, O., Secades-Villa, R., Higgins, S. T., Fernandez-Hermida, J. R., Carballo, J. L., Errasti Perez, J. M., & Diaz, S. A.-H. (2009). Effects of voucher-based intervention on abstinence and retention in an outpatient treatment for cocaine addiction: A randomized controlled trial. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17(3), 131-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015963

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12406   

Gray, K. M., Carpenter, M. J., Baker, N. L., Hartwell, K. J., Lewis, A. L., Hiott, D. W., Deas, D., & Upadhyaya, H. P. (2011). Bupropion SR and contingency management for adolescent smoking cessation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 40(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.08.010

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12407

Higgins, S. T., Delaney, D. D., Budney, A. J., Bickel, W. K., Hughes, J. R., Foerg, F., & Fenwick, J. W. (1991). A behavioral approach to achieving initial cocaine abstinence. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(9), 1218-1224. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.148.9.1218  

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12409

Higgins, S. T., Budney, A. J., Bickel, W. K., Foerg, F. E., Donham, R., & Badger, G. J. (1994). Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51(7), 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950070060011

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12410

Secades-Villa, R., Sánchez‐Hervás, E., Zacarés‐Romaguera, F., García‐Rodríguez, O., Santonja‐Gómez, F. J., & García‐Fernández, G. (2011). Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) for cocaine dependence in the Spanish public health system: 1 year outcome. Drug and alcohol review, 30(6), 606-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00250.x

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12411

Higgins, S. T., Badger, G. J., & Budney, A. J. (2000). Initial abstinence and success in achieving longer term cocaine abstinence. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8(3), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.8.3.377 

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12412   

Higgins, S. T., Wong, C. J., Badger, G. J., Ogden, D. E. H., & Dantona, R. L. (2000). Contingent reinforcement increases cocaine abstinence during outpatient treatment and 1 year of follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(1), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.1.64

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12413   

Higgins, S. T., Sigmon, S. C., Wong, C. J., Heil, S. H., Badger, G. J., Donham, R., Dantona, R. L., & Anthony, S. (2003). Community reinforcement therapy for cocaine-dependent outpatients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(10), 1043-1052. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.1043

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12414

Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., Dantona, R., Donham, R., Matthews, M., & Badger, G. J. (2007). Effects of varying the monetary value of voucher-based incentives on abstinence achieved during and following treatment among cocaine-dependent outpatients. Addiction, 102(2), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01664.x     

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12415

Jones, H. E., Wong, C. J., Tuten, M., & Stitzer, M. L. (2005). Reinforcement-based therapy: 12-month evaluation of an outpatient drug-free treatment for heroin abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79(2), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.01.006

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12416

Katz, E. C., Chutuape, M. A., Jones, H. E., & Stitzer, M. L. (2002). Voucher reinforcement for heroin and cocaine abstinence in a outpatient drug-free program. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10(2), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1037//1064-1297.10.2.136           

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12417

Pantalon, M. V., Ferro, G., Chawarski, M. C., LaPaglia, D. M., Pakes, J. P., & Schottenfeld, R. S. (2004). Voucher purchases in contingency management interventions for women with cocaine dependence. Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 3(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00132576-200403000-00004

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12418   

Petry, N. M. (2000). A comprehensive guide to the application of contingency management procedures in clinical settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58(1-2), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00071-X

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12419

Petry, N. M., & Martin, B. (2002). Low-cost contingency management for treating cocaine-and opioid-abusing methadone patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(2), 398-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.2.398

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12420

Petry, N. M., Tedford, J., Austin, M., Nich, C., Carroll, K. M., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2004). Prize reinforcement contingency management for treating cocaine users: How low can we go, and with whom? Addiction, 99(3), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00642.x     

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12421

Hall, E. A., Prendergast, M. L., Roll, J. M., & Warda, U. (2009). Reinforcing abstinence and treatment participation among offenders in a drug diversion program: Are vouchers effective? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 935-953. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809338769         

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12422

Prendergast, M. L., Hall, E. A., Roll, J., & Warda, U. (2008). Use of vouchers to reinforce abstinence and positive behaviors among clients in a drug court treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 35(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.09.001

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12423

Schmitz, J. M., Mooney, M. E., Moeller, F. G., Stotts, A. L., Green, C., & Grabowski, J. (2008). Levodopa pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence: Choosing the optimal behavioral therapy platform. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 94(1-3), 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.004

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12424

Schmitz, J. M., Lindsay, J. A., Stotts, A. L., Green, C. E., & Moeller, F. G. (2010). Contingency management and levodopa-carbidopa for cocaine treatment: A comparison of three behavioral targets. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18(3), 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019195          

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12425

Schottenfeld, R. S., Chawarski, M. C., Pakes, J. R., Pantalon, M. V., Carroll, K. M., & Kosten, T. R. (2005). Methadone versus buprenorphine with contingency management or performance feedback for cocaine and opioid dependence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.340

Petry, N. M. (2005). Methadone plus contingency management of performance feedback reduces cocaine and opiate use in people with drug addiction. Evidence Based Mental Health, 8(4), 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmh.8.4.112

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12426

Schottenfeld, R. S., Moore, B., & Pantalon, M. V. (2011). Contingency management with community reinforcement approach or twelve-step facilitation drug counseling for cocaine dependent pregnant women or women with young children. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118(1), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.02.019

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 12427

Secades-Villa, R., García-Rodríguez, O., Higgins, S. T., Fernández-Hermida, J. R., & Carballo, J. L. (2008). Community reinforcement approach plus vouchers for cocaine dependence in a community setting in Spain: Six-month outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(2), 202-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.03.006

Secades-Villa, R., García-Rodríguez, O., García-Fernández, G., Sánchez-Hervás, E., Fernandez-Hermida, J. R., Higgins, S. T., Secades-Villa, R., García-Rodríguez, O., García-Fernández, G., Sánchez-Hervás, E., Fernandez-Hermida, J. R., & Higgins, S. T. (2011). Community reinforcement approach plus vouchers among cocaine-dependent outpatients: Twelve-month outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(1), 174-179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021451

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 12428

Wardle, M. C., Vincent, J. N., Suchting, R., Green, C. E., Lane, S. D., & Schmitz, J. M. (2017). Anhedonia is associated with poorer outcomes in contingency management for cocaine use disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 72, 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.08.020

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).