The Efficacy of Escalating and Fixed Contingency Management Reinforcement on Illicit Drug Use in Opioid-dependent Pregnant Women

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment 09/2012; 11(3):150-153. DOI: 10.1097/ADT.0b013e318264cf6d
Source: PubMed


OBJECTIVES: Contingency management (CM), long known to be efficacious in the treatment of substance-dependent men and women, has also been found to be efficacious for substance-dependent pregnant women. However, the specific CM reinforcement parameters in the special population of opioid-dependent pregnant women have been less fully and systematically studied. The Drug Abuse Incentive Systems (DAISY) study, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of opioid-dependent pregnant patients, found that escalating reinforcement was not superior to a fixed reinforcement CM schedule after a 13-week intervention. To further examine CM's reinforcement parameters in this population, this study aims to test the hypothesis that there is an early treatment response showing an escalating reinforcement schedule to be significantly more efficacious than a fixed schedule after 5 weeks of intervention in opioid-dependent pregnant patients. METHODS: Nine measures of opioid and cocaine abstinence among fixed and escalating CM schedule participants in the DAISY RCT (N=90) were compared over the initial 5 weeks of the intervention. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in the opioid and cocaine abstinence measures was found between escalating and fixed conditions after 5 weeks (14 opportunities for each participant to leave a urine sample). The mean (SD) number of drug negative urine samples was 8.1 (4.5) and 7.4 (4.3), for escalating and fixed groups, respectively (p=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: These results further the scientific knowledge regarding CM treatment in opioid-dependent pregnant women by supporting the finding that the escalating and fixed CM schedules produce similar amounts of drug negatives urine samples early in treatment.

1 Follower
12 Reads
  • Source
    • "inforcement value was equal to or greater than that for fixed reinforcement participants . Due to these more extreme reinforcement - value and time - scale parameters , we hypothesized that there would be no difference in abstinence maintenance between escalating and fixed reinforcement participants , as was seen in another recent clinical trial ( Hutchinson et al . , 2012 ; Tuten et al . , 2012 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies indicate that when abstinence is initiated, escalating reinforcement schedules maintain continuous abstinence longer than fixed reinforcement schedules. However, these studies were conducted for shorter durations than most clinical trials and also resulted in larger reinforcer value for escalating participants during the 1st week of the experiment. We tested whether escalating reinforcement schedules maintained abstinence longer than fixed reinforcement schedules in a 12-week clinical trial. Smokers (146) were randomized to an escalating reinforcement schedule, a fixed reinforcement schedule, or a control condition. Escalating reinforcement participants received $5.00 for their first breath carbon monoxide (CO) sample <3 ppm, with a $0.50 increase for each consecutive sample. Fixed reinforcement participants received $19.75 for each breath CO sample <3 ppm. Control participants received payments only for delivering a breath CO sample. Similar proportions of escalating and fixed reinforcement participants met the breath CO criterion at least once. Escalating reinforcement participants maintained criterion breath CO levels longer than fixed reinforcement and control participants. Similar to previous short-term studies, escalating reinforcement schedules maintained longer durations of abstinence than fixed reinforcement schedules during a clinical trial.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis