4.0 Article

Community reinforcement therapy for cocaine-dependent outpatients

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 60, 期 10, 页码 1043-1052

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.1043

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA08076, DA06113, DA07242] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the contributions of community reinforcement therapy to outcome in the community reinforcement approach (CRA) + vouchers outpatient treatment for cocaine dependence. Methods: One hundred cocaine-dependent outpatients were randomly assigned to one of 2 treatment conditions: CRA + vouchers or vouchers only. All patients earned incentives in the form of vouchers exchangeable for retail items contingent on cocaine-free urinalysis results during treatment weeks 1 to 12. Incentives were combined with a 24-week course of CRA therapy designed to promote healthy lifestyle changes in the CRA + vouchers condition, while incentives represented the primary treatment in the vouchers-only condition. Patient drug use and psychosocial functioning were assessed at intake and at least every 3 months for 2 years after treatment entry. Results: Patients treated with CRA + vouchers were retained better in treatment, used cocaine at a lower frequency during treatment but not follow-up, and reported a lower frequency of drinking to intoxication during treatment and follow-up compared with patients treated with vouchers only. Patients treated with CRA + vouchers also reported a higher frequency of days of paid employment during treatment and the initial 6 months of follow-up, decreased depressive symptoms during treatment only, and fewer hospitalizations and legal problems during follow-up. Conclusions: Combining CRA with vouchers had therapeutic effects on substance abuse and psychosocial functioning during treatment and posttreatment follow-up in cocaine-dependent outpatients, although effects on cocaine use appear to be limited to the treatment period.

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

4.0
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