Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Volume 39, Issue 2 , Pages 167-173, September 2010

Resets do not appear to increase the rate of adverse events or prolong relapse in voucher-based reinforcement therapy

  • Brian E. Versek, B.A.

      Affiliations

    • Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 215 399 0980; fax: +1 215 399 0987.
  • ,
  • Carolyn M. Carpenedo, M.H.S.

      Affiliations

    • Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA
  • ,
  • Beth J. Rosenwasser, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA
  • ,
  • Karen Leggett Dugosh, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA
  • ,
  • Elena Bresani, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA
  • ,
  • Kimberly C. Kirby, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA
    • Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Received 11 September 2009; received in revised form 9 March 2010; accepted 6 April 2010. published online 05 July 2010.

Abstract 

Voucher-based reinforcement therapy (VBRT) is an efficacious contingency management intervention for substance use disorders that provides escalating voucher values to reinforce continuous abstinence and typically resets escalated values to the initial low level upon detection of drug use. The objective of this study involving 130 methadone-maintained outpatients receiving VBRT was to investigate whether resets (a) increase risk for adverse events (AEs) and (b) delay return to abstinence in relation to magnitude of voucher reset. Weeks following resets were examined for increased likelihood of AEs using a Poisson regression. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine if higher resets increased the number of days until a negative urine specimen. Results showed that resets did not increase the likelihood of AEs nor were higher resets related to an increased delay to abstinence. Research involving larger samples is needed to produce sufficient data directly addressing safety concerns of various treatment stakeholders.

Keywords: Contingency management, Cocaine abuse treatment, Adverse event, Side effect, Voucher-based reinforcement therapy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0740-5472(10)00094-2

doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2010.04.002

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Volume 39, Issue 2 , Pages 167-173, September 2010