Citation

Dougherty DM, Lake SL, Hill-Kapturczak N, Liang Y, Karns TE, Mullen J, Roache JD. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2015; 39(4): 743-751.

Affiliation

Department of Psychiatry , The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/acer.12687

PMID

25833033

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatments for alcohol use disorders typically have been abstinence based, but harm reduction approaches that encourage drinkers to alter their drinking behavior to reduce the probability of alcohol-related consequences, have gained in popularity. This study used a contingency management procedure to determine its effectiveness in reducing alcohol consumption among heavy drinkers.

METHODS: Eighty-two nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers (ages 21 to 54, M = 30.20) who did not meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence participated in the study. The study had 3 phases: (i) an Observation phase (4 weeks) where participants drank normally; (ii) a Contingency Management phase (12 weeks) where participants were paid $50 weekly for not exceeding low levels of alcohol consumption as measured by transdermal alcohol concentrations, <0.03 g/dl; and (iii) a Follow-up phase (12 weeks) where participants (n = 66) returned monthly for 3 months to self-report drinking after the contingencies were removed. Transdermal alcohol monitors were used to verify meeting contingency requirements; all other analyses were conducted on self-reported alcohol use.

RESULTS: On average 42.3% of participants met the contingency criteria and were paid an average of $222 during the Contingency Management phase, with an average $1,998 in total compensation throughout the study. Compared to the Observation phase, the percent of any self-reported drinking days significantly decreased from 59.9 to 40.0% in the Contingency Management and 32.0% in the Follow-up phases. The percent of self-reported heavy drinking days reported also significantly decreased from 42.4% in the Observation phase to 19.7% in the Contingency Management phase, which was accompanied by a significant increase in percent days of self-reported no (from 40.1 to 60.0%) and low-level drinking (from 9.9 to 15.4%). Self-reported reductions in drinking either persisted, or became more pronounced, during the Follow-up phase.

CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management was associated with a reduction in self-reported episodes of heavy drinking among nontreatment-seeking heavy drinkers. These effects persisted even after incentives were removed, indicating the potential utility of contingency management as a therapeutic intervention to reduce harmful patterns of drinking.

Language: en