Contingency Management for Recovery Oriented Activities at Recovery Houses
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
In this study, the investigators will implement contingency management at rural recovery houses, where individuals with substance use disorders reside. Contingency management is a behavioral intervention in which participants receive incentives (rewards) when they complete planned tasks that are consistent with their recovery efforts. House staff members will also participate in this study and will be trained to provide contingency management to residents. The investigators will compare recovery houses that implement contingency management to matched houses that do not, and the main outcomes will be engagement in the planned activities and retention in the recovery houses. Participants will receive contingency management for up to 12 weeks and follow-up will occur 6 months post-treatment.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Experimental: Contingency management In addition to receiving usual care at the recovery house, participants assigned to this arm will receive contingency management by trained recovery house staff in addition to their usual care. Contingency management sessions will be led by a trained recovery house staff member who is also a research participant in the study. Contingency management will occur once weekly for sessions of approximately 10-15 minute duration for up to 12 weeks. Participants will plan three recovery-oriented activities with the staff member each week, and upon verification of completion of the tasks, the resident participant can earn prize draws of varying monetary amounts. |
Behavioral: Contingency management
The investigators will implement a prize-based contingency management protocol in which residents will complete three pre-planned recovery-oriented activities each week for a period of up to 12 weeks. Upon verified completion of the activities each week, participants may earn prize incentives through drawing from a prize fishbowl or spinning a virtual prize wheel.
Prizes will be money added to a debit card. On the first week and individual has completed pre-planned activities, s/he can receive up to 1 draw per activity completed (3 total), and each week the number of prize draws per activity will escalate by 1. If a participant fails to complete any activities, he/she will not receive the draws for the uncompleted activities, and the prize draws would be reset to 1 in the next week. Participants can earn up to $75 in incentives in total.
Behavioral: Usual Care
Participants in this arm will receive usual care that they would normally receive at the recovery houses. Recovery residences vary considerably, this form of housing benefits individuals in recovery by reinforcing a substance-free lifestyle and providing direct connections to other peers in recovery, mutual support groups and recovery support services.
|
| Active Comparator: Usual Care Participants in this arm will receive usual care that they would normally receive at the recovery houses. Recovery houses are safe, healthy, family-like substance-free living environments that support individuals in recovery from addiction. Although recovery residences vary considerably, this form of housing benefits individuals in recovery by reinforcing a substance-free lifestyle and providing direct connections to other peers in recovery, mutual support groups and recovery support services. |
Behavioral: Usual Care
Participants in this arm will receive usual care that they would normally receive at the recovery houses. Recovery residences vary considerably, this form of housing benefits individuals in recovery by reinforcing a substance-free lifestyle and providing direct connections to other peers in recovery, mutual support groups and recovery support services.
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Treatment retention [Time until leaving the recovery home from study baseline up to one year]
Length of time (in days) a resident resides in the recovery house
- Engagement in recovery-oriented activities [up to 12 week treatment]
Participants will engage in up to 3 planned recovery activities (noted on a tracking form)
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Treatment Satisfaction [Post-treatment (Week 12)]
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (Scores range from 1 to 7 with higher scores reflecting greater satisfaction)
- Quality of Life Assessment [Baseline, post-treatment (week 12) and 6-month follow up]
Self-report Quality of Life inventory (scores range from -3 to 3 with higher scores reflecting greater quality of life)
- Self-Reported Health [Baseline, post-treatment (week 12) and 6-month follow up]
Short Form 36 (SF-36) is a brief measure of overall self-reported health. Scores range from 0 (maximum disability) to 100 (no disability)
- Patient Health Questionnaire - 9 [Baseline, post-treatment (week 12) and 6-month follow up]
A measure of depression symptoms. Scores on the PHQ 9 range from 0 (no depression) to 27 (severe depression).
- Substance Use [Baseline, weekly for 12 weeks, post-treatment (week 12) and 6-month follow up]
Urine drug screen of metabolites for cocaine, methamphetamine, barbiturates, opioids, cannabis, alcohol and benzodiazepines
- Timeline Follow-back for substance use [Baseline, weekly for 12 weeks, post-treatment (week 12) and 6-month follow up]
Timeline Follow-back (TLFB) is a self-report, calendar-based measure of the frequency of substance use
- Treatment Feasibility [Baseline]
Treatment Feasibility will assessed as the proportion of eligible participants who are willing to participate after initial screening.
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Age 18 or older;
-
a resident of the recovery house; and
-
able to provide informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria:
-
expected to be discharged from the recovery house in the next two months;
-
experiencing uncontrolled mania, psychosis or suicidality.
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wayne State University School of Medicine | Detroit | Michigan | United States | 48201 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- Wayne State University
Investigators
None specified.Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
- Frisch, M.B., Cornell, J., Villanueva, M. & Retzlaff, P.J. (1992). Clinical validation of the quality of life inventory: A measure of life satisfaction for treatment planning and outcome assessment. Psychological Assessment, 4, 92-101.
- Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
- Novy, D.M., Nelson, D.V., Goodwin, J. & Rowzee, R.D. (1993). Psychometric comparability of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for different ethnic subpopulations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 343-349.
- Petry NM, Alessi SM, Ledgerwood DM, Sierra S. Psychometric properties of the contingency management competence scale. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Jun 1;109(1-3):167-74. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.027. Epub 2010 Feb 11.
- Petry NM, Alessi SM, Ledgerwood DM. A randomized trial of contingency management delivered by community therapists. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Apr;80(2):286-98. doi: 10.1037/a0026826. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
- Petry NM, Alessi SM, Ledgerwood DM. Contingency management delivered by community therapists in outpatient settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Apr 1;122(1-2):86-92. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.015. Epub 2011 Oct 5.
- Petry NM, Martin B, Finocche C. Contingency management in group treatment: a demonstration project in an HIV drop-in center. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2001 Sep;21(2):89-96. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00184-2.
- Rash CJ, Petry NM, Kirby KC, Martino S, Roll J, Stitzer ML. Identifying provider beliefs related to contingency management adoption using the contingency management beliefs questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Mar 1;121(3):205-12. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.08.027. Epub 2011 Sep 16.
- Shapiro, S.S. & Wilk, M.B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52.3/4, 591-611.
- Sobell, L.C., & Sobell, M.B. (1992). Timeline follow-back: A technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In R.Z. Litten and J.P. Allen (eds.), Measuring alcohol consumption: Psychosocial and biochemical methods (pp. 41-72). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
- Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83.
- Yi R, Johnson MW, Giordano LA, Landes RD, Badger GJ, Bickel WK. THE EFFECTS OF REDUCED CIGARETTE SMOKING ON DISCOUNTING FUTURE REWARDS: AN INITIAL EVALUATION. Psychol Rec. 2008 Spring;58(2):163-174. doi: 10.1007/BF03395609.
- IRB-21-08-3875