Adults, Contingency Management, Drug Abuse, Drug Use, Humans, Methamphetamine, Methamphetamine Abuse, Methamphetamine-dependence, Substance Abuse, Substance Use, Substance Use Disorders
Conditions
Keywords
Contingency Management, Methamphetamine, Substance Use, Treatment, Internet-Based Intervention
Brief summary
Methamphetamine misuse has become a growing concern in Alberta, creating a burden on the health care system. Further, individuals who use methamphetamine in Alberta exhibit significant difficulty remaining in treatment. These troubling patterns necessitate the provision of evidence-based practices (EBPs)-those grounded in empirical evidence-to ensure the best possible care and outcomes for those struggling with this addiction. Within the field of substance use (SU), contingency management (CM) is an extensively studied evidence-based treatment (EBT) for addictive disorders. CM is an intervention that provides incentives to encourage positive behavioural change. Compared to standard care (treatment-as-usual (TAU)), CM has resulted in improvements in abstinence, attendance, adherence, retention, and quality of life. The efficacy of CM has largely been investigated in the context of reinforcing abstinence, though the literature suggests that CM which reinforces attendance may be as effective. Research from the US has examined the cost-effectiveness of CM and found that although CM costs more, it was associated with greater abstinence, treatment completion, and substance-absent urine compared to TAU. Despite the promising literature, the uptake of CM in Canada is limited making it difficult to understand whether this EBT is equally efficacious as compared to the US. This study will implement and evaluate the efficacy of virtually delivered attendance-based CM in outpatient addiction treatment in Alberta. Participants (N=544) will be individuals seeking treatment for methamphetamine use (n=304) and individuals seeking treatment for substance use issues other than methamphetamine use (n=240). It is hypothesized that compared to participants in TAU, participants in CM will evidence: (1) greater retention, (2) greater attendance, (3) greater abstinence from methamphetamine and less methamphetamine use, (4) greater abstinence from other SU and less SU, and (5) greater improvement in quality of life over the intervention and follow-up periods. Exploratory aims include understanding how: outcomes differ based remote versus in-person delivery of CM; outcomes differ between participants who use methamphetamine and participants who use substances other than methamphetamine; the costs of CM differ from TAU; CM changes health service use.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALContingency management
Incentives will be provided for treatment attendance over a 12-week period.
Sponsors
Alberta Health services
University of Calgary
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Masking description
Given incentivization will occur for attendance, it is not possible to blind conditions.
Intervention model description
Participants who use methamphetamine and participants who use substances other than methamphetamine will randomly be assigned to one of two treatment arms: contingency management which incentivizes participants for their treatment attendance or treatment-as-usual with no contingency management.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* 18-years of age or older * Seeking treatment for methamphetamine use or substance use issues other than methamphetamine use * Reported methamphetamine use or substance use other than methamphetamine use within 3-months prior to study entry * Deemed appropriate for treatment-as-usual using Alberta Health Services clinical procedures * Willing to participate in the 12-week intervention in-person or virtually at least once weekly * Willing to participate in-person or virtually for a follow-up at 3, 6, and 12-months following the 12-week intervention period * Willing to complete questionnaires weekly during the 12-week intervention period and at each follow-up at 3, 6, and 12-months following the 12-week intervention period
Exclusion criteria
* Past or current history of gambling problems * Imminent plans to enter an environment in which participation in this study is restricted (e.g., residential treatment, inpatient unit, detoxification, incarceration, house arrest). * Attended more than one treatment session since their intake, or screening date was more than one month following their first day of treatment at the Alberta Health Services clinic * No plans to attend weekly treatment at the Alberta Health Services clinic
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Differences in Treatment Retention from Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12 | Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12. | The number of days between the first and last scheduled treatment session. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Longest Consecutive Days of Use of Other Licit and Illicit Substances Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of other licit and illicit substances will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Proportion of Days Attended Scheduled Treatment from Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12 | Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12. | Attendance will be defined based on definitions in Petry and colleagues' (2018) and Robinson and colleagues' (2014). |
| Longest Consecutive Days Attended Scheduled Treatment from Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12 | Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12. | Attendance will be defined based on definitions in Petry and colleagues' (2018) and Robinson and colleagues' (2014). |
| Longest Consecutive Days Absent from Scheduled Treatment from Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12 | Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12. | Attendance will be defined based on definitions in Petry and colleagues' (2018) and Robinson and colleagues' (2014). |
| Mean Number of Days Attended Scheduled Treatment from Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12 | Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12. | Attendance will be defined based on definitions in Petry and colleagues' (2018) and Robinson and colleagues' (2014). |
| Total Number of Days Attended Scheduled Treatment from Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12 | Baseline to Post-Intervention at Week 12. | Attendance will be defined based on definitions in Petry and colleagues' (2018) and Robinson and colleagues' (2014). |
| Proportion of Methamphetamine Abstinent Days Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of methamphetamine will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Longest Consecutive Days of Methamphetamine Abstinence Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of methamphetamine will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Longest Consecutive Days of Methamphetamine Use Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of methamphetamine will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Proportion of Days Abstinent from Other Licit and Illicit Substances Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of other licit and illicit substances will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Longest Consecutive Days Abstinent from Other Licit and Illicit Substances Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of other licit and illicit substances will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Mean Number of Units Consumed of Other Quantifiable Licit and Illicit Substances Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of other licit and illicit substances will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Total Number of Units Consumed of Other Quantifiable Licit and Illicit Substances Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of other licit and illicit substances will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
| Largest Number of Units Consumed of Other Quantifiable Licit and Illicit Substances in One Day Measured Using the Timeline Followback (TLFB) Questionnaire | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The TLFB is an instrument that assesses retrospective substance use. Abstinence from and use of other licit and illicit substances will be examined using the TLFB based on Robinson and colleagues' definitions (2014) over the intervention period and follow-up periods. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Differences in Outcomes Between Participants Seeking Treatment for Methamphetamine Use and Participants Seeking Treatment for Substance Use Issues Other Than Methamphetamine Use | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | To explore whether the pre-specified outcomes differ between participants who are seeking treatment for methamphetamine use and participants seeking treatment for substance use issues other than methamphetamine use. |
| Differences in Costs Between Contingency Management and Treatment-As-Usual | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12. | To explore differences in the costs of providing contingency management for treatment attendance and treatment-as-usual alone. |
| Differences in Health Service Use Between Contingency Management and Treatment-As-Usual | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | To explore differences in health service use between the experimental group which examines contingency management for treatment attendance and the treatment-as-usual alone group as measured by the number of (a) emergency department visits, (b) visits to urgent care centers, (c) hospitalizations, and (d) enrolments in other treatment services. |
| Differences in Outcome Measures Between Remote and In-Person Delivery of Contingency Management | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12. | To explore whether the pre-specified outcomes differ between participants who choose to attend their contingency management remotely and participants who choose to attend their contingency management in-person. |
| Changes in Quality of Life Measured Using the 26-item World Health Organization (WHO) Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) | Baseline to Post-Intervention Week 12 and from Week 12 to Week 15 (3-Month Follow-Up), Week 18 (6-Month Follow-Up), and Week 24 (12-Month Follow-Up). | The WHOQOL-BREF is a 26-item self-report instrument that measures quality of life across four domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment. |
Countries
Canada
Outcome results
None listed