ArticleJMIR mental health2025
Digital Contingency Management for Substance Use Disorder Treatment: 12-Month Quasi-Experimental Design.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although contingency management has shown some efficacy in substance use disorder treatment, digital contingency management (DCM) needs more evidence supporting its value in treating substance misuse. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of DCM in treating substance use disorder by examining 2 key outcome variables-abstinence and appointment attendance. Methods: A 12-month quasi-experimental design was conducted by enrolling patients into 2 groups using an alternating assignment process: one group receiving treatment-as-usual plus DCM and the other receiving treatment as usual with no contingency management. Propensity score matching was conducted to match groups on covariates. After matching, t tests were conducted to examine the difference between groups on urine abstinence and appointment attendance rates. Results: Two cohorts of propensity-matched patients (66 interventions and 59 controls) were analyzed. Abstinence was significantly higher in the DCM group (mean 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96) than in the treatment-as-usual group (mean 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.90; P<.01). Appointment attendance also demonstrated significant differences between the groups, with the DCM group achieving a mean rate of 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.74) compared with 0.50 (95% CI 0.45-0.55) in the treatment-as-usual group (P<.001). This notable increase highlights the role of DCM in fostering engagement with care, an essential factor for successful treatment outcomes. Conclusions: The results suggest that DCM can be an effective treatment modality for substance use disorder.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.