Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
36 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-08-25
2021-05-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Encouraging Abstinence Behavior in a Drug Epidemic: Optimizing Dynamic Incentives
NCT04927143
Motivational Incentives for Enhanced Drug Abuse Recovery: Methadone Clinics. - 1
NCT00033020
Contingency Management for Opioid and Stimulant Use Disorders in Primary Care
NCT05288751
Contingency Management to Enhance Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment
NCT04024059
Impact of Coaching Patients on Pain Control With and Without Financial Incentivization
NCT04113252
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Despite evidence that incentives are effective and the increasing need for effective approaches to combat the addiction crisis, incentive programs have not been widely implemented. A key barrier is that while the benefits are largely borne by patients and taxpayers, there are large logistical costs that must be borne by clinics: most existing incentive programs involve manual, in-person measurement of behaviors, and prize or voucher purchase and delivery by clinic staff. The significant clinic-level legwork necessary to set up these programs, including setting up behavioral and payment tracking systems, training staff, etc., have prevented the programs from scaling widely. In sum, prior experience has consistently shown that incentives increase duration of treatment and decrease substance abuse, but the logistical complications remain a hurdle to implementation.
This will be the first randomized evaluation of an innovative, scalable incentives program for opioid addiction delivered through a mobile application. The application, which was developed by our implementing partner, DynamiCare Health, provides a "turnkey" solution that health clinics can easily prescribe. The app enables remote monitoring of behavior; for example, drug tests can be administered in patients' homes, as patients submit "selfie-videos" showing them taking saliva drug tests, which are then verified by trained remote staff. Treatment adherence can similarly be checked through GPS tracking for on-site methadone pharmacotherapy. The efficacy of this approach has not been tested rigorously before.
This study will address two key knowledge gaps in the logistics of existing incentive program design for opioid addiction. First, the first technology t for remote monitoring of abstinence behavior for opioid use will be tested. Remote monitoring of abstinence from cigarettes and alcohol has been integral in reducing the costs and extending the potential reach of incentive programs for people with nicotine/tobacco and alcohol use disorders (e.g. to vulnerable or rural populations), and this study promises to do the same for opioid addiction. The second gap is in remote delivery of incentives. After a behavior is verified, the app will deliver incentives to patients as cash available on a linked debit card. The delay between monitoring of the target behavior and the delivery of financial incentives has been shown to be a significant moderator of treatment effect size. This technology allows patients to receive incentives almost immediately following the undertaking of the incentivized behavior: a first in incentives for opioid addiction.
Another novel feature of this design is that can allow assessment of a gap in the literature on incentive delivery: comparing both the isolated effects of incentives and of the monitoring needed to implement an incentive program. In addition to a control group, this study includes both monitoring groups and incentives groups. While existing literature on incentives for addiction has included either a monitoring group or a control group, this is the first to include both, such that a comparison can be made between incentives that are distal (inputs) and proximal (outcome) to the targeted abstinence behavior.
Finally, this study will directly address two key open questions in the literature on incentives for drug-users. The first question is whether it is more effective to directly incentivize the outcome of interest - drug abstinence - or to incentivize behaviors that are inputs into the production of abstinence. Similarly designed studies did not detect different effects on abstinence from incentivizing treatment attendance and incentivizing cocaine abstinence among cocaine users (both were effective): however, not only was this study for a different substance use disorder, but because of differential rates of test submission among these two groups, the results were not conclusive. This study will similarly compare two versions of the incentive program: one that incentivizes inputs to achieving abstinence, and one that incentivizes the outcome of abstinence. To address differential test submission rates, the impacts of the intervention will be measured via urine drug-tests administered identically to patients in both treatments.
The second question is how to optimize the size of incentives over time to maximize incentive effectiveness. This will be assessed by randomly varying the size and timing of incentives offered to participants in both the Inputs and Outcomes groups. The variation in incentive amounts across participants and time to fit a structural model of abstinence behaviors over time. The model will be used to describe the optimal shape of incentives over time.
The results of this intervention will be directly relevant for potential users of this or similar mobile applications for incentive provision among people with opioid-use disorders, including insurers, treatment facilities, and governments.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Outcomes Group
During the intervention period, the "Outcomes" group will receive incentives for abstaining from drug use. Patients in this group will receive the same services and urine drug-test schedule as standard of care and a similar mobile app and debit card as the Inputs group. However, the app will prompt patients in this group to submit saliva drug tests through their mobile phones on a random schedule (averaging three tests per week). Patients will receive immediate financial rewards in exchange for submitting drug-negative samples. Saliva tests typically have a window of detection between 24-48 hr after drug use.
App + Outcomes Contingency Management
The app has programmed contingencies whereby incentives can be earned for outcomes of abstaining from drug use (e.g., drug-negative saliva samples on saliva opioid tests).
Inputs Group
Will receive incentives for behaviors that are inputs to abstaining from drug use. Patients in this group will receive the same services and urine drug-test schedule as standard of care. Additionally, patients will be registered for a mobile phone app provided by DynamiCare Health and provided with a linked debit card. The app will prompt patients to complete actions that are inputs to abstinence an average of three times per week. These actions will be tailored to the patient's individual needs, and may include:
* Drug adherence to prescribed SUD pharmacotherapy
* Attendance at individual and group psychotherapy sessions
App + Inputs Contingency Management
The app has programmed contingencies whereby incentives can be earned for behaviors that are inputs to abstaining from drug use (e.g., attending psychotherapy or taking SUD psychopharmacology).
Combination Group
Will receive interventions from both Inputs and Outputs groups, as well as standard of care therapy services and urine drug tests an average of three times per week, total. Interventions include incentives for:
* Drug adherence to prescribed SUD pharmacotherapy
* Attendance at individual and group psychotherapy sessions
* Random saliva tests
App + Inputs Contingency Management
The app has programmed contingencies whereby incentives can be earned for behaviors that are inputs to abstaining from drug use (e.g., attending psychotherapy or taking SUD psychopharmacology).
App + Outcomes Contingency Management
The app has programmed contingencies whereby incentives can be earned for outcomes of abstaining from drug use (e.g., drug-negative saliva samples on saliva opioid tests).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
App + Inputs Contingency Management
The app has programmed contingencies whereby incentives can be earned for behaviors that are inputs to abstaining from drug use (e.g., attending psychotherapy or taking SUD psychopharmacology).
App + Outcomes Contingency Management
The app has programmed contingencies whereby incentives can be earned for outcomes of abstaining from drug use (e.g., drug-negative saliva samples on saliva opioid tests).
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Meet DSM-5 opioid use disorder criteria as evidenced by an opioid disorder CPT code F11 (opioid related disorders);
3. Have access to a smartphone (iOS or Android) with data plan and willing to download DynamiCare app;
4. Are in day (PHP) or partial day (IOP) AODA treatment in Aurora Health's Behavioral Health Program;
5. Are currently prescribed or will be prescribed within 1-4 days oral buprenorphine for their OUD;
6. Are likely to be helped by contingency management because at least ONE of the following conditions is true:
1. Were first enrolled in day or partial day opioid treatment no longer than 1 week prior to providing informed consent.
2. Currently using non-medical opioids.
3. Regularly missing scheduled AODA appointments.
7. Understands English.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Has significant cognitive impairment that might confound participation as determined by the PI or are so significantly cognitively impaired that they have a legal guardian.
Note that pregnant women are not excluded from participating in the study
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Chicago
OTHER
University of California, Berkeley
OTHER
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Michael Fendrich, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of California - Santa Cruz
Berkeley, California, United States
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Aurora Psychiatric Hospital
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kirby KC, Matejkowski J, Clements NT, Seymour BL, Festinger DS. Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2014 Sep;109(9):1426-36. doi: 10.1111/add.12589. Epub 2014 May 23.
Kurti AN, Davis DR, Redner R, Jarvis BP, Zvorsky I, Keith DR, Bolivar HA, White TJ, Rippberger P, Markesich C, Atwood G, Higgins ST. A Review of the Literature on Remote Monitoring Technology in Incentive-Based Interventions for Health-Related Behavior Change. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2016 Jun;2(2):128-152. doi: 10.1037/tps0000067.
Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006 Feb;101(2):192-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01311.x.
Petry NM, Alessi SM, Carroll KM, Hanson T, MacKinnon S, Rounsaville B, Sierra S. Contingency management treatments: Reinforcing abstinence versus adherence with goal-related activities. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006 Jun;74(3):592-601. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.592.
Schottenfeld RS, Chawarski MC, Pakes JR, Pantalon MV, Carroll KM, Kosten TR. Methadone versus buprenorphine with contingency management or performance feedback for cocaine and opioid dependence. Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;162(2):340-9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.340.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
19-1095
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.