Prize Contingency Management

Substance Use Prevention or Treatment Supported

Prize Contingency Management (Prize CM) is a behavioral reinforcement program designed to reduce substance use. Prize CM aims to increase a desired behavior, such as abstinence from drugs or alcohol, through immediate tangible motivational incentives known as prizes. Participants can earn prizes in either a group or individual setting by exhibiting a desired behavior, such as testing negative for substances on a urine test or attending a group therapy session. Each time a participant exhibits the desired behavior, they earn opportunities for prizes by drawing tickets from a prize bowl. Prize CM prizes typically range in size from small prizes worth about $1 (e.g., candles) to jumbo prizes worth about $100 (e.g., televisions). When a participant draws a prize ticket, they’re able to choose a prize of that size that appeals to them.

 

In individual settings, Prize CM can be delivered either as a stand-alone session or immediately before the start of an individual therapy session. In an individual Prize CM session, CM therapists collect a breath or urine sample, discuss results with the participant, and, if the participant achieves the desired behavior, allow them to draw from the prize bowl. Half of the tickets in the bowl are prize tickets of a specific size and half are positive messages. Participants can increase their number of draws from the prize bowl by routinely exhibiting the desired behavior. A lapse in the desired behavior resets the number of draws earned. At the end of each session, CM therapists congratulate participants either for exhibiting the desired behavior or for attending the session, remind the participant about the next session, and confirm how many draws the participant will earn at the next session if they continue to exhibit the desired behavior. 

 

In group settings, Prize CM is referred to as Name-in-the-Hat Prize CM and is conducted before the start of a group therapy session. The desired behavior at Name-in-the-Hat Prize CM sessions is typically group therapy attendance. At the start of each Name-in-the-Hat Prize CM session, participants write their name on slips of paper and put them into a hat, with the number of name slips corresponding to the number of times in a row they’ve exhibited the desired behavior. A lapse in the desired behavior resets the number of slips earned. The CM therapist then draws a certain number of name slips from the hat and participants whose names are selected draw tickets from the prize bowl. Unlike individual Prize CM, there are no positive reinforcement messages in the prize bowl; all tickets earn a prize. After participants draw tickets from the prize bowl, they select a prize of that size category.  


Prize CM is rated as a supported practice because at least one study carried out in a usual care or practice setting achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 6 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.


 


Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: May 2024


Sources

The following sources informed the program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, 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, visit the Review Process page or download the Handbook.

Target Population

Prize CM is designed for people struggling with substance use. Prize CM is not appropriate for participants in recovery from pathological gambling.

Dosage

CM therapists typically provide Prize CM for 8–24 weeks with 2–3 Prize CM sessions per week. Each Prize CM session typically lasts 5–10 minutes. In individual settings, CM therapists can offer Prize CM as a stand-alone appointment or offer it before the start of an individual therapy session. In group settings, CM therapists provide Name-in-the-Hat Prize CM to groups of 8–25 participants before the start of a group therapy session. 

Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

CM therapists can deliver Prize CM in clinics, community settings, outpatient settings, or residential settings. 

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

  • Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office

Education, Certifications and Training

CM therapists are typically counselors, nurses, or other personnel trained in contingency management. Contingency management training may include an overview of contingency management, discussion of behaviors that contingency management may alter, behavioral principles to consider, and how to design and implement a contingency management protocol. Once implementation of a Prize CM program begins, supervisors should monitor CM therapists’ implementation and provide feedback to therapists using the Contingency Management Competence Scale for Reinforcing Abstinence.

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

Petry, N. M. (2012). Contingency Management for substance abuse treatment. A guide to implementing this evidence-based practice. Routledge. 

Available languages

The Prize CM manual is available in English. 

Other supporting materials

Contingency Management Competence Scale for Reinforcing Abstinence


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 Prize Contingency Management
Identified in Search 53
Eligible for Review 12
Rated High 2
Rated Moderate 2
Rated Low 8
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 mental or emotional health -0.15
-5
1 (3) 64 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 1
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use 0.08
3
4 (13) 407 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 13
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver criminal behavior -0.20
-8
1 (2) 64 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning 0.53
20
1 (1) 58 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 1
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health 0.16
6
2 (5) 295 Favorable: 2
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability -0.12
-4
1 (2) 64 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
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. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

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 mental or emotional health -0.15
-5
1 (3) 64 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 1
-
Study 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2004)
Addiction Severity Index: Gambling (3 Month Follow-Up) -0.86 *
-30
- 58 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Psychiatric Status (1 Month Follow-Up) 0.16
6
- 64 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Psychiatric Status (3 Month Follow-Up) 0.26
10
- 58 - 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use 0.08
3
4 (13) 407 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 13
Unfavorable: 0
-
Study 14380 - Contingency Management vs Standard Care (Alessi, 2007)
Participants Testing Positive (Percentage) Null
not calculated
- 77 - 6
Participants Testing Positive (Percentage) Null
not calculated
- 70 - 9
Study 14568 - Contingency Management (CM) vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2002)
Timeline Followback: Abstinence From Opioids and Cocaine (Days, Self-Report) 0.62
23
- 41 - 0
Timeline Followback: Abstinence From Opioids (Days, Self-Report) 0.07
2
- 41 - 0
Timeline Followback: Abstinence From Cocaine (Days, Self-Report) 0.61
22
- 41 - 0
Timeline Followback: Abstinence From Alcohol (Days, Self-Report) 0.06
2
- 41 - 0
Timeline Followback: Abstinence From Marijuana (Days, Self-Report) 0.14
5
- 41 - 0
Timeline Followback: Abstinence From Benzodiazepines (Days, Self-Report) 0.06
2
- 41 - 0
Study 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2004)
Addiction Severity Index: Drug (3 Month Follow-Up) -0.06
-2
- 58 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Alcohol (3 Month Follow-Up) -0.49
-18
- 58 - 0
Study 14579 - Contingency Management vs. Standard Care (Petry, 2011)
HIV Risk Behaviour Scale: Drug Use (1 Month Follow-up) 0.20
7
- 231 - 0
HIV Risk Behaviour Scale: Drug Use (3 Month Follow-up) 0.10
3
- 221 - 0
HIV Risk Behaviour Scale: Drug Use 0.20
7
- 215 - 9
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver criminal behavior -0.20
-8
1 (2) 64 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
-
Study 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2004)
Addiction Severity Index: Legal Status (1 Month Follow-Up) -0.15
-5
- 64 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Legal Status (3 Month Follow-Up) -0.26
-10
- 58 - 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning 0.53
20
1 (1) 58 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 1
Unfavorable: 0
-
Study 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2004)
Addiction Severity Index: Family/Social (3 Month Follow-Up) 0.53
20
- 58 - 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health 0.16
6
2 (5) 295 Favorable: 2
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
-
Study 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2004)
Addiction Severity Index: Medical Status (1 Month Follow-Up) -0.20
-7
- 64 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Medical Status (3 Month Follow-Up) 0.13
5
- 58 - 0
Study 14579 - Contingency Management vs. Standard Care (Petry, 2011)
HIV Risk Behaviour Scale: Sexual Behaviour (1 Month Follow-up) 0.26 *
10
- 231 - 0
HIV Risk Behaviour Scale: Sexual Behaviour (3 Month Follow-up) -0.05
-2
- 221 - 0
HIV Risk Behaviour Scale: Sexual Behaviour 0.42 *
16
- 215 - 9
Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability -0.12
-4
1 (2) 64 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
-
Study 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment (Petry, 2004)
Addiction Severity Index: Employment (1 Month Follow-Up) -0.14
-5
- 64 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Employment (3 Month Follow-Up) -0.09
-3
- 58 - 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, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

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@abtassoc.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 14561 - $240 Prize Contingency Management vs Standard Treatment
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Hartford, CT, USA -- Average age: 35 years 61% African American
24% Caucasian
12% Hispanic
3% Other
48% Male 88% Meet DSM criteria for cocaine dependence; 57% Meet DSM criteria for alcohol abuse/dependence 33% Employed Full Time
Study 14380 - Contingency Management vs Standard Care
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Hartford and Waterbury, CT, USA 2007 Average Age: 38 years 48% African American
28% European American
13% Hispanic American
57% Male Adult patients in substance abuse treatment 57% Employed full or part time
$4,256 Past year legal income (median)
Study 14579 - Contingency Management vs. Standard Care
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Connecticut, USA 2005 Average age: 37 years 56% European American
31% African American
9% Hispanic American
4% Other
57% Male 100% DSM-IV diagnosis of cocaine, opioid, or alcohol abuse or dependence; 64% Cocaine dependent, 58% Alcohol dependent, 30% Opioid dependent 46% Employed full-time
$14,610 Past year income
Study 14568 - Contingency Management (CM) vs Standard Treatment
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Hartford, CT, USA -- Average age: 39 years 52% Hispanic
36% African American
12% Other
-- 95% met DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence; 29% HIV positive $7,428 Past year legal income
27% Employed full- or part-time in past month

“--” 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 14561

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 was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)
Study 14568

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 was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 14380

Alessi, S. M., Hanson, T., Wieners, M., & Petry, N. M. (2007). Low-cost contingency management in community clinics: Delivering incentives partially in group therapy. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15(3), 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.15.3.293

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)
Study 14579

Petry, N. M., Weinstock, J., & Alessi, S. M. (2011). A randomized trial of contingency management delivered in the context of group counseling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(5), 686-696. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024813

Petry, N. M., & Carroll, K. M. (2013). Contingency management is efficacious in opioid-dependent outpatients not maintained on agonist pharmacotherapy. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(4), 1036-1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032175

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

Studies Rated Low

Study 14464

Godley, M. D., Godley, S. H., Dennis, M. L., Funk, R. R., Passetti, L. L., & Petry, N. M. (2014). A randomized trial of assertive continuing care and contingency management for adolescents with substance use disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035264

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 14570

Petry, N. M., Peirce, J. M., Stitzer, M. L., Blaine, J., Roll, J. M., Cohen, A., Obert, J., Killeen, T., Saladin, M. E., Cowell, M., Kirby, K. C., Sterling, R., Royer-Malvestuto, C., Hamilton, J., Booth, R. E., Macdonald, M., Liebert, M., Rader, L., Burns, R., DiMaria, J., Copersino, M., Stabile, P. Q., Kolodner, K., & Li, R. (2005). Effect of prize-based incentives on outcomes in stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs: A national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(10), 1148-1156. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.10.1148

Miguel, A. Q. C., Smith, C. L., Burduli, E., Roll, J. M., & McPherson, S. M. (2021). Validating the clinical relevance of alternative stimulant use treatment outcome measures by examining their association with 3-month follow-up outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 288-293. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000482

Olmstead, T. A., Sindelar, J. L., & Petry, N. M. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of prize-based incentives for stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 87(2-3), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.08.012

Killeen, T., Carter, R., Copersino, M., Petry, N., & Stitzer, M. (2007). Effectiveness of motivational incentives in stimulant abusing outpatients with different treatment histories. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33(1), 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990601091101

Sorensen, J. L. (2006). Abstinence incentives improve stimulant abusers' compliance with community-based psychosocial treatments. Evidence Based Mental Health, 9(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmh.9.2.55

Stitzer, M. L., Petry, N. M., & Peirce, J. (2010). Motivational incentives research in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38 (Suppl 1), S61-S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.12.010

Stitzer, M. L., Petry, N. M., Peirce, J., Kirby, K., Killeen, T., Roll, J., Hamilton, J., Stabile, P. Q., Sterling, R., Brown, C., Kolodner, K., & Li, R. (2007). Effectiveness of abstinence-based incentives: Interaction with intake stimulant test results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 805-811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.805

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 14605

Roll, J. M., Chudzynski, J., Cameron, J. M., Howell, D. N., & McPherson, S. (2013). Duration effects in contingency management treatment of methamphetamine disorders. Addictive Behaviors, 38(9), 2455-2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.03.018

McPherson, S., Orr, M., Lederhos, C., McDonell, M., Leickly, E., Hirchak, K., Oluwoye, O. A., Murphy, S. M., Layton, M., & Roll, J. M. (2018). Decreases in smoking during treatment for methamphetamine-use disorders: Preliminary evidence. Behavioural Pharmacology, 29(4), 370-374. https://doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0000000000000349

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 14583

Petry, N. M., Barry, D., Alessi, S. M., Rounsaville, B. J., & Carroll, K. M. (2012). A randomized trial adapting contingency management targets based on initial abstinence status of cocaine-dependent patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(2), 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026883

Rash, C. J., Andrade, L. F., & Petry, N. M. (2013). Income received during treatment does not affect response to contingency management treatments in cocaine-dependent outpatients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132(3), 528-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.03.020

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 14573

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., Hanson, T., & Sierra, S. (2007). Randomized trial of contingent prizes versus vouchers in cocaine-using methadone patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(6), 983-991. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.75.6.983

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 14582

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2012). Contingency management delivered by community therapists in outpatient settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 122(1-2), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.015

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 14586

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., & Rash, C. J. (2013). A randomized study of contingency management in cocaine-dependent patients with severe and persistent mental health disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 130(1-3), 234-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.10.017

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 14584

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2012). A randomized trial of contingency management delivered by community therapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(2), 286-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026826

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 14379

Alessi, S. M., Rash, C. J., & Pescatello, L. S. (2020). Reinforcing exercise to improve drug abuse treatment outcomes: A randomized controlled study in a substance use disorder outpatient treatment setting. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(1), 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000517

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14387

Becker, S. J., Murphy, C. M., Hartzler, B., Rash, C. J., Janssen, T., Roosa, M., Madden, L. M., & Garner, B. R. (2021). Project MIMIC (Maximizing Implementation of Motivational Incentives in Clinics): A cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 16(1), Article 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-021-00268-0

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14455

Forster, S. E., Forman, S. D., Gancz, N. N., Siegle, G. J., Dickey, M. W., & Steinhauer, S. R. (2021). Electrophysiological predictors and indicators of contingency management treatment response: Rationale and design for the ways of rewarding abstinence project (WRAP). Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 23, Article 100796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100796

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14460

Ghitza, U. E., Epstein, D. H., Schmittner, J., Vahabzadeh, M., Lin, J.-L., & Preston, K. L. (2007). Randomized trial of prize-based reinforcement density for simultaneous abstinence from cocaine and heroin. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.75.5.765

Ghitza, U. E., Epstein, D. H., & Preston, K. L. (2008). Contingency management reduces injection-related HIV risk behaviors in heroin and cocaine using outpatients. Addictive Behaviors, 33(4), 593-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.11.009

Ghitza, U. E., Epstein, D. H., Schmittner, J., Vahabzadeh, M., Lin, J.-L., & Preston, K. L. (2008). Effect of reinforcement probability and prize size on cocaine and heroin abstinence in prize-based contingency management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(4), 539-549. https://doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.2008.41-539

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14483

Hser, Y.-I., Li, J., Jiang, H., Zhang, R., Du, J., Zhang, C., Zhang, B., Evans, E., Wu, F., Chang, Y.-J., Peng, C., Huang, D., Stitzer, M. L., Roll, J., & Zhao, M. (2011). Effects of a randomized contingency management intervention on opiate abstinence and retention in methadone maintenance treatment in China. Addiction, 106(10), 1801-1809. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03490.x

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14498

Kelly, T. M., Daley, D. C., & Douaihy, A. B. (2013). Contingency management for patients with dual disorders in intensive outpatient treatment for addiction. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 9(2), 108-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2014.924772

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14502

Kirby, K. C., Kerwin, M. E., Carpenedo, C. M., Rosenwasser, B. J., & Gardner, R. S. (2008). Interdependent group contingency management for cocaine-dependent methadone maintenance patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(4), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-579.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14510

Ledgerwood, D. M., Alessi, S. M., Hanson, T., Godley, M. D., & Petry, N. M. (2008). Contingency management for attendance to group substance abuse treatment administered by clinicians in community clinics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(4), 517-526. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-517

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.5).

Study 14515

Ling, W., Hillhouaw, M., Ang, A., Jenkins, J., & Fahey, J. (2013). Comparison of behavioral treatment conditions in buprenorphine maintenance. Addiction, 108(10), 1788-1798. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12266

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14517

Lintz, M. J., Sutton, B., & Thurstone, C. (2019). Associations between school-based substance use treatment and academic outcomes. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 29(7), 554-558. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2018.0178

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14520

Lott, D. C., & Jencius, S. (2009). Effectiveness of very low-cost contingency management in a community adolescent treatment program. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 102(1-3), 162-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.01.010

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14524

McDonell, M. G., Srebnik, D., Angelo, F., McPherson, S., Lowe, J. M., Sugar, A., Short, R. A., Roll, J. M., & Ries, R. K. (2013). Randomized controlled trial of contingency management for stimulant use in community mental health patients with serious mental illness. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11121831

Murphy, S. M., McDonell, M. G., McPherson, S., Srebnik, D., Angelo, F., Roll, J. M., & Ries, R. K. (2015). An economic evaluation of a contingency-management intervention for stimulant use among community mental health patients with serious mental illness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 153, 293-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.05.004

Murphy, S. M., McDonell, M. G., McPherson, S., Srebnik, D., Roll, J. M., & Ries, R. (2015). Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a contingency-management intervention for stimulant use among community mental health patients with serious mental illness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 156, e160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.07.435

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14525

Hirchak, K. A., Lyons, A. J., Herron, J. L., Kordas, G., Shaw, J. L., Jansen, K., Avey, J. P., McPherson, S. M., Donovan, D., Roll, J., Buchwald, D., Ries, R., & McDonell, M. G. (2022). Contingency management for alcohol use disorder reduces cannabis use among American Indian and Alaska Native adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 137, Article 108693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108693

McDonell, M. G., Nepom, J. R., Leickly, E., Suchy-Dicey, A., Hirchak, K., Echo-Hawk, A., Schwartz, S. M., Calhoun, D., Donovan, D., Roll, J., Ries, R., & Buchwald, D. (2016). A culturally-tailored behavioral intervention trial for alcohol use disorders in three American Indian communities: Rationale, design, and methods. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 47, 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.12.010

McDonell, M. G., Hirchak, K. A., Herron, J., Lyons, A. J., Alcover, K. C., Shaw, J., Kordas, G., Dirks, L. G., Jansen, K., Avey, J., Lillie, K., Donovan, D., McPherson, S. M., Dillard, D., Ries, R., Roll, J., & Buchwald, D. (2021). Effect of incentives for alcohol abstinence in partnership with 3 American Indian and Alaska Native communities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(6), 599-606. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4768

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14526

McDonell, M. G., Leickly, E., McPherson, S., Skalisky, J., Srebnik, D., Angelo, F., Vilardaga, R., Nepom, J. R., Roll, J. M., & Ries, R. K. (2017). A randomized controlled trial of ethyl glucuronide-based contingency management for outpatients with co-occurring alcohol use disorders and serious mental illness. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(4), 370-377. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16050627

McDonell, M. G., Leickly, E., McPherson, S., Skalisky, J., Srebnik, D., Angelo, F., Vilardaga, R., Nepom, J. R., Roll, J. M., & Ries, R. K. (2017). 'A randomized controlled trial of ethyl glucuronide-based contingency management for outpatients with co-occurring alcohol use disorders and serious mental illness': Correction. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(6), 604. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.1746correction1.

Leickly, E., Skalisky, J., Oluwoye, O., McPherson, S. M., Srebnik, D., Roll, J. M., Ries, R. K., & McDonell, M. G. (2018). Homelessness predicts attrition but not alcohol abstinence in outpatients experiencing co-occurring alcohol dependence and serious mental illness. Substance Abuse, 39(3), 271-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2017.1391926

Leickly, E., Skalisky, J., Angelo, F. A., Srebnik, D., McPherson, S., Roll, J. M., Ries, R. K., & McDonell, M. G. (2019). Perspectives on a contingency management intervention for alcohol use among consumers with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 42(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000330

Oluwoye, O., Leickly, E., Skalisky, J., McPherson, S., Hirchak, K., Srebnik, D., Roll, J. M., Ries, R. K., & McDonell, M. G. (2018). Serious mental illness in heavy drinkers is associated with poor treatment outcomes in outpatients with co-occurring disorders. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16(3), 672-679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9821-4

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14528

McDonell, M. G., Skalisky, J., Burduli, E., Foote, A., Sr., Granbois, A., Smoker, K., Hirchak, K., Herron, J., Ries, R. K., Echo-Hawk, A., Barbosa-Leiker, C., Buchwald, D., Roll, J., & McPherson, S. M. (2021). The rewarding recovery study: A randomized controlled trial of incentives for alcohol and drug abstinence with a rural American Indian community. Addiction, 116(6), 1569-1579. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15349

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14530

McPherson, S., Brooks, O., Barbosa-Leiker, C., Lederhos, C., Lamp, A., Murphy, S., Layton, M., & Roll, J. (2016). Examining longitudinal stimulant use and treatment attendance as parallel outcomes in two contingency management randomized clinical trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 61, 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2015.08.008

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14555

Oluwoye, O., Hirchak, K., Leickly, E., Skalisky, J., McPherson, S., Srebnik, D., Roll, J. M., Ries, R. K., & McDonell, M. G. (2018). Interaction between pre-treatment drug use and heterogeneity of psychiatric diagnosis predicts outcomes in outpatients with co-occurring disorders. Psychiatry Research, 260, 233-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.070

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14559

Carroll K. M., Nich, C., LaPaglia, D. M., Peters, E. N., Easton C. J., & Petry N. M. (2012). Combining cognitive behavioral therapy and contingency management to enhance their effects in treating cannabis dependence: Less can be more, more or less. Addiction, 107, 1650-1659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03877.x

Peters, E. N., Petry, N. M., Lapaglia, D. M., Reynolds, B., & Carroll, K. M. (2013). Delay discounting in adults receiving treatment for marijuana dependence. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030943

Yip, S. W., DeVito, E. E., Kober, H., Worhunsky, P. D., Carroll, K. M., & Potenza, M. N. (2014). Pretreatment measures of brain structure and reward-processing brain function in cannabis dependence: An exploratory study of relationships with abstinence during behavioral treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 140, 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.03.031

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14560

Petry, N. M., Martin, B., Cooney, J. L., & Kranzler, H. R. (2000). Give them prizes, and they will come: Contingency management for treatment of alcohol dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 250-257. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.68.2.250

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14562

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., Carroll, K. M., Hanson, T., MacKinnon, S., Rounsaville, B., & Sierra, S. (2006). Contingency management treatments: Reinforcing abstinence versus adherence with goal-related activities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 592-601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.74.3.592

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14563

Petry, N. M., DePhilippis, D., Rash, C. J., Drapkin, M., & McKay, J. R. (2014). Nationwide dissemination of contingency management: The Veterans Administration initiative. The American Journal on Addictions, 23(3), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-0391.2014.12092.x

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14564

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., Barry, D., & Carroll, K. M. (2015). Standard magnitude prize reinforcers can be as efficacious as larger magnitude reinforcers in cocaine-dependent methadone patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(3), 464-472. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037888

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14565

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., Rash, C. J., Barry, D., & Carroll, K. M. (2018). A randomized trial of contingency management reinforcing attendance at treatment: Do duration and timing of reinforcement matter? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(10), 799-809. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000330

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14571

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., Marx, J., Austin, M., & Tardif, M. (2005). Vouchers versus prizes: Contingency management treatment of substance abusers in community settings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1005-1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.73.6.1005

Olmstead, T. A., & Petry, N. M. (2009). The cost-effectiveness of prize-based and voucher-based contingency management in a population of cocaine- or opioid-dependent outpatients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 102(1-3), 108-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.02.005

Ford, J. D., Hawke, J., Alessi, S., Ledgerwood, D., & Petry, N. (2007). Psychological trauma and PTSD symptoms as predictors of substance dependence treatment outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(10), 2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.04.001

Ledgerwood, D. M., & Petry, N. M. (2006). Does contingency management affect motivation to change substance use? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.10.012

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14572

Petry, N. M., Martin, B., & Simcic, F. (2005). Prize reinforcement contingency management for cocaine dependence: Integration with group therapy in a methadone clinic. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(2), 354-359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.2.354

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14575

Petry, N. M., Alessi, S. M., Ledgerwood, D. M., & Sierra, S. (2010). Psychometric properties of the contingency management competence scale. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 109(1-3), 167-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.027

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14576

Petry, N. M., & Alessi, S. M. (2010). Prize-based contingency management is efficacious in cocaine-abusing patients with and without recent gambling participation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 39(3), 282-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.06.011

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14577

Petry, N. M., Weinstock, J., Alessi, S. M., Lewis, M. W., & Dieckhaus, K. (2010). Group-based randomized trial of contingencies for health and abstinence in HIV patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(1), 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016778

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14580

Petry, N. M., & Roll, J. M. (2011). Amount of earnings during prize contingency management treatment is associated with posttreatment abstinence outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19(6), 445-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024261

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)

Study 14599

Rash, C.J., Petry, N.M., Alessi, S.M., & Barnett, N.P. (2018). Monitoring alcohol use in heavy drinking soup kitchen attendees. Alcohol, 81, 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2018.10.001

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14609

Rosen, M. I., Dieckhaus, K., McMahon, T. J., Valdes, B., Petry, N. M., Cramer, J., & Rounsaville, B. (2007). Improved adherence with contingency management. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 21(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2006.0028

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14650

Tracy, K., Babuscio, T., Nich, C., Kiluk, B., Carroll, K. M., Petry, N. M., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2007). Contingency Management to reduce substance use in individuals who are homeless with co-occurring psychiatric disorders. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33(2), 253-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990601174931

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14657

Winhusen, T. M., Brigham, G. S., Kropp, F., Lindblad, R., Gardin, J. G., Penn, P., Hodgkins, C., Kelly, T. M., Douaihy, A., McCann, M., Love, L. D., DeGravelles, E., Bachrach, K., Sonne, S. C., Hiott, B., Haynes, L., Sharma, G., Lewis, D. F., VanVeldhuisen, P., Theobald, J., & Ghitza, U. (2014). A randomized trial of concurrent smoking-cessation and substance use disorder treatment in stimulant-dependent smokers. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75(4), 336-343. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.13m08449

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14698

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., Tennen, H., & Petry, N. M. (2020). Individualized assessment and treatment program (IATP) for cannabis use disorder: Randomized controlled trial with and without contingency management. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(1), 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000491

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., Tennen, H., & Dunn, H. K. (2021). Momentary coping and marijuana use in treated adults: Exploring mechanisms of treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(4), 264-276. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000633

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14706

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., Kabela-Cormier, E., & Petry, N. (2007). Changing network support for drinking: Initial findings from the Network Support Project. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(4), 542-555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.75.4.542

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., & Tennen, H. (2015). Network support treatment for alcohol dependence: Gender differences in treatment mechanisms and outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 45, 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.005

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., Kabela-Cormier, E., & Petry, N. M. (2009). Changing network support for drinking: Network Support Project 2-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0015252

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14713

Petitjean, S. A., Dursteler-MacFarland, K. M., Krokar, M. C., Strasser, J., Mueller, S. E., Degen, B., Trombini, M. V., Vogel, M., Walter, M., Wiesbeck, G. A., & Farronato, N. S. (2014). A randomized, controlled trial of combined cognitive-behavioral therapy plus prize-based contingency management for cocaine dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 145, 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.785

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14716

Killeen, T. K., McRae-Clark, A. L., Waldrop, A. E., Upadhyaya, H., & Brady, K. T. (2012). Contingency management in community programs treating adolescent substance abuse: A feasibility study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 25(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00313.x

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14723

Schmitz, J. M., Stotts, A. L., Vujanovic, A. A., Weaver, M. F., Yoon, J. H., Vincent, J., & Green, C. E. (2018). A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for cocaine cessation and relapse prevention: Tailoring treatment to the individual. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 65, 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2017.12.015

Yoon, J. H., Suchting, R., de Dios, C., Vincent, J. N., McKay, S. A., Lane, S. D., & Schmitz, J. M. (2021). Decreased cocaine demand following contingency management treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 226, Article 108883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108883

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14729

Carroll, K. M., Nich, C., Petry, N. M., Eagan, D. A., Shi, J. M., & Ball, S. A. (2016). A randomized factorial trial of disulfiram and contingency management to enhance cognitive behavioral therapy for cocaine dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 160, 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.12.036

DeVito, E. E., Dong, G., Kober, H., Xu, J., Carroll, K. M., & Potenza, M. N. (2017). Functional neural changes following behavioral therapies and disulfiram for cocaine dependence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31(5), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000298

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 14730

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., & Petry, N. M. (2013). Behavioral treatment for marijuana dependence: Randomized trial of contingency management and self-efficacy enhancement. Addictive Behaviors, 38(3), 1764-1775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.08.011

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 14732

Burduli, E., Skalisky, J., Hirchak, K., Orr, M. F., Foote, A., Granbois, A., Ries, R., Roll, J. M., Buchwald, D., McDonell, M. G., & McPherson, S. M. (2018). Contingency management intervention targeting co-addiction of alcohol and drugs among American Indian adults: Design, methodology, and baseline data. Clinical Trials, 15(6), 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774518796151

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4)