RUO Home

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Oviedo

View Item 
  •   RUO Home
  • Producción Bibliográfica de UniOvi: RECOPILA
  • Artículos
  • View Item
  •   RUO Home
  • Producción Bibliográfica de UniOvi: RECOPILA
  • Artículos
  • View Item
    • español
    • English
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of RUOCommunities and CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsxmlui.ArtifactBrowser.Navigation.browse_issnAuthor profilesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsxmlui.ArtifactBrowser.Navigation.browse_issn

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

RECENTLY ADDED

Last submissions
Repository
How to publish
Resources
FAQs

Effectiveness of contingency management for smoking cessation in substance users: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:
Secades Villa, RobertoUniovi authority; Aonso Diego, GemaUniovi authority; García Pérez, ÁngelUniovi authority; González de la Roz, AlbaUniovi authority
Subject:

meta-analysis

contingency management

effectiveness

smoking cessation

substance use disorder

Publication date:
2020
Publisher version:
https://content.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ccp0000611
Citación:
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(10), p. 951-964 (2020); doi:10.1037/ccp0000611
Descripción física:
p. 951-964
Abstract:

Objective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (ID: CRD42019122315) to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM) to promote smoking abstinence among individuals with substance use disorder or in recovery. Method. Databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and EBSCO. The primary eligibility criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis were as follows: any study examining the efficacy of CM for smoking cessation that reported smoking abstinence and/or cigarette reductions. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality assessment tool. Publication bias was examined using Egger’s regression intercept, the Begg-Mazumdar test, and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill approach. Results. A total of 22 articles were included, and 13 were included in three meta-analyses: abstinence at posttreatment (12 studies), abstinence at follow-up (8 studies), and reduction outcomes at posttreatment (6 studies). CM was superior to comparison arms in smoking abstinence (RR= 2.555; 95%CI: 1.730-3.775; p < .001) and reduction (SMD=.601; 95%CI: 0.372, 0.831; p < .001) at end-of-treatment. At long-term follow-ups, CM did not show enhanced effects over abstinence beyond those shown in comparison arms (RR=1.029; 95%CI: 0.577, 1.836; p = .922). Smoking-cessation treatment (all treatments included CM) and smoking abstinence increased the likelihood of abstinence from alcohol and/or illicit drugs. All studies were rated as being of strong or moderate quality and no marked presence of publication bias was found. Conclusions. CM for smoking cessation in individuals with substance use disorders performs significantly better than control conditions in reducing smoking at end-of-treatment.

Objective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (ID: CRD42019122315) to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM) to promote smoking abstinence among individuals with substance use disorder or in recovery. Method. Databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and EBSCO. The primary eligibility criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis were as follows: any study examining the efficacy of CM for smoking cessation that reported smoking abstinence and/or cigarette reductions. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality assessment tool. Publication bias was examined using Egger’s regression intercept, the Begg-Mazumdar test, and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill approach. Results. A total of 22 articles were included, and 13 were included in three meta-analyses: abstinence at posttreatment (12 studies), abstinence at follow-up (8 studies), and reduction outcomes at posttreatment (6 studies). CM was superior to comparison arms in smoking abstinence (RR= 2.555; 95%CI: 1.730-3.775; p < .001) and reduction (SMD=.601; 95%CI: 0.372, 0.831; p < .001) at end-of-treatment. At long-term follow-ups, CM did not show enhanced effects over abstinence beyond those shown in comparison arms (RR=1.029; 95%CI: 0.577, 1.836; p = .922). Smoking-cessation treatment (all treatments included CM) and smoking abstinence increased the likelihood of abstinence from alcohol and/or illicit drugs. All studies were rated as being of strong or moderate quality and no marked presence of publication bias was found. Conclusions. CM for smoking cessation in individuals with substance use disorders performs significantly better than control conditions in reducing smoking at end-of-treatment.

URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10651/58141
ISSN:
0022-006X
DOI:
10.1037/ccp0000611
Collections
  • Artículos [37548]
  • Psicología [1482]
Files in this item
Thumbnail
untranslated
Postprint (740.2Kb)
Métricas
Compartir
Exportar a Mendeley
Estadísticas de uso
Estadísticas de uso
Metadata
Show full item record
Página principal Uniovi

Biblioteca

Contacto

Facebook Universidad de OviedoTwitter Universidad de Oviedo
The content of the Repository, unless otherwise specified, is protected with a Creative Commons license: Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Internacional
Creative Commons Image