Background: In contingency management (CM), individuals receive rewards for alcohol abstinence. CM is associated with reduced alcohol use in adults with co-occurring serious mental illnesses (SMI). Pre-treatment urine ethyl glucuronide (uEtG) levels equivalent to daily heavy drinking (uEtG >349 ng/mL) are associated with poor response to CM. Modifications to CM are needed to improve outcomes for non-responders. Aims: To determine if pre-treatment heavy drinkers, defined by uEtG, with SMI achieve higher levels of alcohol abstinence when they receive an increased magnitude of reinforcement for abstinence (High-Magnitude CM) or reinforcers for reduced drinking, prior to receiving reinforcers for abstinence (Shaping CM), relative to those who receive typical low-magnitude abstinence based CM (Usual CM). Additionally, variables in the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment model will be examined as treatment response moderators. Methods: Participants (N = 400) will be recruited from two urban mental health organizations and complete a 4-week induction period where they will be reinforced for submitting samples for uEtG testing. Participants who attain a mean uEtG >349 mg/mL will be randomized to receive either Usual CM, High-Magnitude CM, or Shaping CM for 16 weeks. Differences in abstinence, assessed by uEtG, will be examined during treatment and during a 12-month follow-up. Measures of negative emotionality, alcohol reinforcer salience, and executive functioning will be gathered at study intake and used to predict treatment outcomes. Discussion: This novel approach to CM will use an alcohol biomarker to identify those at risk for treatment non-response and determine if adaptations to CM might improve outcomes for this group.
Oluwoye, O., Skalisky, J., Burduli, E., Chaytor, N. S., McPherson, S., Murphy, S. M., … McDonell, M. G. (2018). Using a randomized controlled trial to test whether modifications to contingency management improve outcomes for heavy drinkers with serious mental illness. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 69, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2018.04.010