Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2016
Treating Smokers in Substance Treatment With Contingent Vouchers, Nicotine Replacement and Brief Advice Adapted for Sobriety Settings.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rohsenow Damaris J, Martin Rosemarie A, Tidey Jennifer W, Colby Suzanne M, Monti Peter M
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) provides an opportunity to use voucher-based treatment for smoking. Nicotine replacement (NRT) could improve outcomes previously observed with vouchers without NRT.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial compared contingent vouchers (CV) for smoking abstinence to noncontingent vouchers (NV), when all received counseling and NRT. Smokers who had not sought smoking treatment (n=340) in residential SUD treatment were provided 14days of vouchers for complete smoking abstinence per exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) after a 5-day smoking reduction period, or vouchers only for breath samples, plus brief advice (four sessions) and 8weeks of NRT.
RESULTS: Within treatment, 20% had complete abstinence with CV, 5% with NV (p<.001), and participants showed 50% of days abstinent in CV compared to 22% in NV (p<.001). Across 1, 3, 6 and 12months after randomization, CV resulted in significantly fewer cigarettes per day (p<.01) and fewer days smoking (p<.01), but with small effects. Point-prevalence abstinence differences across follow-up (e.g., 4% CV, 2% in NV at 6 and 12months) were not significant. No differences in substance use were seen.
CONCLUSIONS: Within-treatment effects on abstinence are stronger than in a prior study of the same CV with BA but without NRT, but NRT does not improve abstinence after vouchers end. Implications for voucher-based treatment include investigating effects when combined with stronger smoking medications and using motivational interviewing. Smoking treatment does not harm SUD recovery.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial compared contingent vouchers (CV) for smoking abstinence to noncontingent vouchers (NV), when all received counseling and NRT. Smokers who had not sought smoking treatment (n=340) in residential SUD treatment were provided 14days of vouchers for complete smoking abstinence per exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) after a 5-day smoking reduction period, or vouchers only for breath samples, plus brief advice (four sessions) and 8weeks of NRT.
RESULTS: Within treatment, 20% had complete abstinence with CV, 5% with NV (p<.001), and participants showed 50% of days abstinent in CV compared to 22% in NV (p<.001). Across 1, 3, 6 and 12months after randomization, CV resulted in significantly fewer cigarettes per day (p<.01) and fewer days smoking (p<.01), but with small effects. Point-prevalence abstinence differences across follow-up (e.g., 4% CV, 2% in NV at 6 and 12months) were not significant. No differences in substance use were seen.
CONCLUSIONS: Within-treatment effects on abstinence are stronger than in a prior study of the same CV with BA but without NRT, but NRT does not improve abstinence after vouchers end. Implications for voucher-based treatment include investigating effects when combined with stronger smoking medications and using motivational interviewing. Smoking treatment does not harm SUD recovery.