4.1 Article

Voucher-Based Contingency Management is Efficacious but Underutilized in Treating Addictions

期刊

PERSPECTIVES ON BEHAVIOR SCIENCE
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 501-524

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40614-019-00216-z

关键词

Cigarette smoking; Nicotine; Substance use disorders; Reinforcement; Financial incentives; Vulnerable populations; Contingency management; Community reinforcement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The United States lags far behind other industrialized countries on major markers of population health. Population health experts identify unhealthy behavior patterns (e.g., cigarette smoking, other substance use disorders, physical inactivity and poor food choices, nonadherence with recommended medical regimens) as the largest contributor to the status quo. Because these risk behaviors are overrepresented in socioeconomically disadvantaged and other vulnerable populations, they also increase health disparities. Hence, identifying evidence-based strategies to promote and sustain health-related behavior change is critical to improving U.S. population health. In this report, we review research demonstrating the efficacy of voucher-based contingency management delivered alone or in combination with other interventions for treating substance use disorders and other health-related behavior problems. The efficacy supporting these interventions is robust and discernible at the level of controlled randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses. Unfortunately, these evidence-based interventions are being underutilized in routine clinical care for substance use disorders, although they are used broadly in private-sector wellness programs and international programs to reduce chronic poverty. This report reviews the evidence supporting the efficacy of voucher-based contingency management using projects developed at the University of Vermont as exemplars and discusses dissemination of the model to public and private sector efforts to improve individual and population health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据