Preferences for Smartphone Versus In-Person Delivery of Contingency Management: A Web-Based Survey of Australians Who Use Methamphetamine.

INTRODUCTION

Smartphone delivery of contingency management (CM) could overcome barriers to dissemination of this effective treatment for methamphetamine use. We quantified help-seeking intentions for CM and preferences for smartphone versus in-person delivery of CM amongst people who used methamphetamine.

METHODS

An open web-based cross-sectional survey of 220 Australian residents who had used methamphetamine weekly or more often in the past year was conducted. Help-seeking intentions for CM were compared to other available treatment options using the General Help Seeking Questionnaire. Preferences for three CM models: in-person voucher-based CM, in-person prize-based CM and a smartphone-delivered model of CM, were sought, along with preferences for other aspects of CM delivery.

RESULTS

Help-seeking intentions were similar for CM and other treatment options (82% vs. 76%-81% likely to seek help). Smartphone delivery of CM was preferred by 43% of participants (cf. 27% for in-person voucher CM and 30% for in-person prize draw CM). Overall, other preferences were for a fixed (predictable) reinforcement schedule (78%), cash (53%) or gift card (40%) rewards rather than merchandise (7%), and adjunctive support (78%) - mostly counselling (50%) and withdrawal management (43%). Participants wanted a median minimum payment of $69 (interquartile range $58-$77) to start CM, and a minimal median potential earnings of $4000 (interquartile range $3600-$4500) over a 12-week program.

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

We found strong potential demand for smartphone-delivered CM, although adjunctive counselling and withdrawal management would be needed and incentives may need to be larger than those used in conventional CM models.