Opioid-use DisorderNCT04927143
Encouraging Abstinence Behavior in a Drug Epidemic: Optimizing Dynamic Incentives
A study testing App-Based Contingency Management in people with Opioid-use Disorder and Cocaine Use Disorder, run by Wake Forest University Health Sciences at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Combatting the rise of the opioid epidemic is a central challenge of U.S. health care policy. A promising approach for improving welfare and decreasing medical costs of people with substance abuse disorders is offering incentive payments for healthy behaviors. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Opioid-use Disorder, Cocaine Use Disorder, Opioid Use
- What is being tested?
- App-Based Contingency Management
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 206 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Sep 2021to 25 Sep 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age at least 18 years old;
- Meet DSM-5 OUD, CoUD, or MUD criteria as evidenced by an OUD CPT code F11* (opioid related disorders), a CoUD CPT code F14* (cocaine related disorders), a MUD CPT code F15.1/F15.2 or other clinical notes indicating illicit opioid/cocaine/methamphetamine use for treatment
- Have access to a smartphone (iOS or Android) with data plan and willing to download DynamiCare app;
- Have an email and can access it from their smartphone;
- Are in residential, day (PHP), partial day (IOP), or outpatient (OP) AODA treatment;
- Are likely to be helped by contingency management because at least ONE of the following conditions is true:
Show all 9Show fewer
- Were first enrolled in residential, PHP, or IOP substance use treatment no longer than 2 treatment weeks (14 days/encounters of treatment) prior to providing informed consent.
- Used non-medical opioids, cocaine, and/or methamphetamine within the last 21 days.
- Understands English.
Who cannot join
- Have evidence of active (non-substance related) psychosis that might impair participation as determined by the PI.
- Has significant cognitive impairment that might confound participation as determined by the PI or are so significantly cognitively impaired that they have a legal guardian.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United States2 sites
Rogers Behavioral Health
Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, 53066
Advocate Aurora Behavioral Health Services
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, 53212
About this study
Combatting the rise of the opioid epidemic is a central challenge of U.S. health care policy. A promising approach for improving welfare and decreasing medical costs of people with substance abuse disorders is offering incentive payments for healthy behaviors. This approach, broadly known as "contingency management" in the medical literature, has repeatedly shown to be effective in treating substance abuse. However, the use of incentives by treatment facilities remains extremely low. Furthermore, it is not well understood how to design optimal incentives to treat opioid abuse. This project will conduct a randomized evaluation of two types of dynamically adjusting incentive schedules for people with opioid use disorders or cocaine use disorders: "escalating" schedules where incentive amounts increase with success to increase incentive power, and "de-escalating" schedules where incentive amounts decrease with success to improve incentive targeting. Both schemes are implemented with a novel "turnkey" mobile application, making them uniquely low-cost, low-hassle, and scalable. Effects will be measured on abstinence outcomes, including longest duration of abstinence and the percentage of negative drug tests. In combination with survey data, variation from the experiment will shed light on the barriers to abstinence more broadly and inform the understanding of optimal incentive design.
Read the detailed description
Over the past decade, the annual number of drug-related deaths more than doubled in the United States (Swensen, 2015). In particular, over the 2001-2013 period, overdose deaths involving prescription pain relievers tripled while those involving heroin increased fivefold (NIDA, 2015). Further, the COVID-19 pandemic is thought to have significantly increased drug use, especially opioids, cocaine, and methamphetamines. This upward-sloping trend has steepened in the past few years. Drug overdoses are now the principal cause of death among Americans aged less than 50. A primary cause of this escalating public health crisis is the abuse of opioids (e.g., prescription pain relievers and heroin), which is estimated to concern more than two million Americans (New York Times, 2017).
Many studies in the medical literature have tested whether providing incentives to encourage abstinence from drugs can further reduce drug abuse in a drug-treatment setting. The results are very promising: Incentives to reduce opioid abuse increase the average duration of abstinence by 25 - 60% relative to medication and counseling alone (Petry et al., 2005; Schottenfeld et al., 2005; Petry et al., 2010; Ling et al., 2013). Similar effects have been demonstrated repeatedly across a wealth of populations, substance-abuse disorders, and payment methodologies (Lussier et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2016; Higgins, 2016). A meta-analysis of psychosocial treatments concluded that providing incentives for abstinence behavior was the intervention with the greatest effect size in treating substance use disorders (Dutra et al., 2008). Despite their costs, incentive programs have been estimated to be cost-effective, with the estimated benefits - including benefits to participants and to taxpayers from lower health care costs and higher earnings - estimated to be on the order of 20 times as large as normal program costs (WSIPP, 2017). Although such estimates are somewhat speculative, the case for scaling up incentive programs is strong.
And yet, despite evidence that incentives are effective and the ever-more-dire need for effective approaches to combat the addiction crisis, incentive programs have not been scaled up widely to date. A key barrier is that while the benefits are largely borne by patients and taxpayers, there are large logistical costs that must be borne by clinics: existing incentive programs involve manual, in-person measurement of behaviors, and prize or voucher purchase and delivery by clinic staff. The significant clinic-level legwork necessary to set up these programs, including setting up behavioral and payment tracking systems, training staff, etc., have prevented the programs from scaling widely (Benishek et al., 2014).
We propose to conduct the first randomized evaluation of an innovative, scalable incentives program for drug addiction delivered through a mobile application. The application, which was developed by our implementing partner, DynamiCare Health (henceforth "DynamiCare"), provides a "turnkey" solution that health clinics can easily prescribe. The app enables remote monitoring of behavior; for example, drug tests can be administered in patients' homes, as patients submit "selfie-videos" showing them taking saliva drug tests, which are then verified by trained remote staff. Treatment adherence can similarly be checked through GPS tracking for on-site methadone pharmacotherapy. The efficacy of this approach has not been tested rigorously before.
This study will address two key knowledge gaps in the logistics of existing incentive program design for drug addiction. First, we will test the first technology that we know of for remote monitoring of abstinence behavior for drug use. Remote monitoring of abstinence from cigarettes and alcohol has been integral in reducing the costs and extending the potential reach of incentive programs for people with nicotine/tobacco and alcohol use disorders (e.g. to vulnerable or rural populations), and our study promises to do the same for illicit drug addiction (see for a review of remote monitoring technologies for incentive delivery). Our second gap is in remote delivery of incentives. After a behavior is verified, the app will deliver incentives to patients as cash available on a linked debit card. The delay between monitoring of the target behavior and the delivery of financial incentives has been shown to be a significant moderator of treatment effect size (Lussier, Heil, Mongeon, Badger, \& Higgins, 2006). Our technology allows patients to receive incentives almost immediately following the undertaking of the incentivized behavior: a first in incentives for drug addiction.
The second question is how to optimize the size of incentives over time to maximize incentive effectiveness. We propose to do this by randomly varying the size and timing of incentives offered to participants across groups. We will then use the variation in incentive amounts across participants and time to fit a structural model of abstinence behaviors over time. We will then use the model to describe the optimal shape of incentives over time.
The results of this intervention will be directly relevant for potential users of this or similar mobile applications for incentive provision among people with substance use disorders, including insurers, treatment facilities, and governments.
- Conditions
- Opioid-use Disorder, Cocaine Use Disorder, Opioid Use, Cocaine Use, Substance Use, Methamphetamine Abuse
- Being tested
- App-Based Contingency Management, Sham Control
- Keywords
- contingency management, app-based treatment
- Medical subject headings
- Opioid-Related Disorders, Substance-Related Disorders
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
App-Based Contingency ManagementBehavioural
Participants will receive financial incentives for submitting randomly generated drug-negative saliva tests across the intervention period.
Sham ControlBehavioural
Participants get access to the DynamiCare app but will not be provided with financial incentives.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | Active comparator | Participants in this group will have access to the DynamiCare app; however, no behavioral incentives will be provided to this group. Receives: Behavioral: Sham Control |
| Escalating Low | Experimental | Participants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every negative drug test up to a ceiling and "reset" to the lowest amount when a test is positive or missed. The "Low" group will receive incentives worth $2-$8. Receives: Behavioral: App-Based Contingency Management |
| Escalating High | Experimental | Participants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every negative drug test up to a ceiling and "reset" to the lowest amount when a test is positive or missed. The "High" group will receive incentives worth $4-$16. Receives: Behavioral: App-Based Contingency Management |
| De-Escalating Low | Experimental | Participants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every positive drug tests (up to a ceiling), and decrease by the same increment with every negative drug test (down to a floor). The "Low" group will receive incentives worth $6-12. Receives: Behavioral: App-Based Contingency Management |
| De-Escalating High | Experimental | Participants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every positive drug tests (up to a ceiling), and decrease by the same increment with every negative drug test (down to a floor). The "High" group will receive incentives worth $10-$20. Receives: Behavioral: App-Based Contingency Management |
| Constant High | Experimental | In the Constant groups, incentive amounts will remain unchanged across time. The "High" group will receive incentives worth $16. Receives: Behavioral: App-Based Contingency Management |
| Constant Low | Experimental | In the Constant groups, incentive amounts will remain unchanged across time. The "Low" group will receive incentives worth $8 every test. Receives: Behavioral: App-Based Contingency Management |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percent of Negative Saliva Tests
Percent of tests negative for non-medical opioids, cocaine, or stimulant
Measured: month 3
Percent of App Acceptability
Percent of eligible population which accepts app
Measured: month 12
Secondary outcomes (4)
Percent of Psychotherapy Visits Attended
Measured: month 3
Percent of Treatment Discharge Against Medical Advice
Percent of patients of discharging from treatment before completion
Measured: month 3
Percent of Relapse
Percent of patients who step up in care to inpatient, residential, or day partial hospitalization treatment program (PHP)
Measured: month 3
Percent of transition to step-down care
Percent of patients who transition to appropriate step-down care within 14 days of enrollment in treatment
Measured: Day 14
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Jun 2021
- Study start15 Sep 2021
- Primary completion25 Sep 2026
- Study completion25 Sep 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Opioid-use DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Wake Forest University Health SciencesThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 206 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Chicago, Rogers Behavioral Health, University of California Santa Cruz
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Mercedes Robaina, PhD, Principal investigator, Advocate Aurora Behavioral Health ServicesAriel Zucker, PhD, Study director, University of California Santa Cruz
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04927143
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB00130263
- Other IDs
- 21.102E
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 9 Jun 2021
- Last updated
- 29 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kirby KC, Matejkowski J, Clements NT, Seymour BL, Festinger DS. Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2014 Sep;109(9):1426-36. doi: 10.1111/add.12589. Epub 2014 May 23.
PubMed 24750232Davis DR, Kurti AN, Skelly JM, Redner R, White TJ, Higgins ST. A review of the literature on contingency management in the treatment of substance use disorders, 2009-2014. Prev Med. 2016 Nov;92:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.008. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
PubMed 27514250Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Feb;165(2):179-87. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851. Epub 2008 Jan 15.
PubMed 18198270Higgins ST, Washio Y, Lopez AA, Heil SH, Solomon LJ, Lynch ME, Hanson JD, Higgins TM, Skelly JM, Redner R, Bernstein IM. Examining two different schedules of financial incentives for smoking cessation among pregnant women. Prev Med. 2014 Nov;68:51-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.024. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
PubMed 24704135Hutchinson ML, Chisolm MS, Tuten M, Leoutsakos JM, Jones HE. The efficacy of escalating and fixed contingency management reinforcement on illicit drug use in opioid-dependent pregnant women. Addict Disord Their Treat. 2012 Sep;11(3):150-153. doi: 10.1097/ADT.0b013e318264cf6d.
PubMed 23226717Kirby KC, Carpenedo CM, Dugosh KL, Rosenwasser BJ, Benishek LA, Janik A, Keashen R, Bresani E, Silverman K. Randomized clinical trial examining duration of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for cocaine abstinence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Oct 1;132(3):639-45. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.04.015. Epub 2013 May 13.
PubMed 23680075Lamb RJ, Kirby KC, Morral AR, Galbicka G, Iguchi MY. Shaping smoking cessation in hard-to-treat smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Feb;78(1):62-71. doi: 10.1037/a0018323.
PubMed 20099951Ling W, Hillhouse M, Ang A, Jenkins J, Fahey J. Comparison of behavioral treatment conditions in buprenorphine maintenance. Addiction. 2013 Oct;108(10):1788-98. doi: 10.1111/add.12266. Epub 2013 Jul 12.
PubMed 23734858Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006 Feb;101(2):192-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01311.x.
PubMed 16445548Packer RR, Howell DN, McPherson S, Roll JM. Investigating reinforcer magnitude and reinforcer delay: a contingency management analog study. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012 Aug;20(4):287-92. doi: 10.1037/a0027802. Epub 2012 Jun 11.
PubMed 22686494Petry NM, Alessi SM, Marx J, Austin M, Tardif M. Vouchers versus prizes: contingency management treatment of substance abusers in community settings. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Dec;73(6):1005-14. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1005.
PubMed 16392974Petry NM, Alessi SM, Barry D, Carroll KM. Standard magnitude prize reinforcers can be as efficacious as larger magnitude reinforcers in cocaine-dependent methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Jun;83(3):464-72. doi: 10.1037/a0037888. Epub 2014 Sep 8.
PubMed 25198284Petry NM, Barry D, Alessi SM, Rounsaville BJ, Carroll KM. A randomized trial adapting contingency management targets based on initial abstinence status of cocaine-dependent patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Apr;80(2):276-85. doi: 10.1037/a0026883. Epub 2012 Jan 9.
PubMed 22229758Petry NM, Martin B. Low-cost contingency management for treating cocaine- and opioid-abusing methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002 Apr;70(2):398-405. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.70.2.398.
PubMed 11952198Petry NM, Weinstock J, Alessi SM, Lewis MW, Dieckhaus K. Group-based randomized trial of contingencies for health and abstinence in HIV patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Feb;78(1):89-97. doi: 10.1037/a0016778.
PubMed 20099954
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Encouraging Abstinence Behavior in a Drug Epidemic: Optimizing Dynamic Incentives
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04927143
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB00130263
- Conditions
- Opioid-use Disorder, Cocaine Use Disorder, Opioid Use, Cocaine Use, Substance Use, Methamphetamine Abuse
- Keywords
- contingency management, app-based treatment
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 206 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Wake Forest University Health SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Chicago, Rogers Behavioral Health, University of California Santa Cruz
- Study start
- 15 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 25 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 Sep 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Combatting the rise of the opioid epidemic is a central challenge of U.S. health care policy. A promising approach for improving welfare and decreasing medical costs of people with substance abuse disorders is offering incentive payments for healthy behaviors. This approach, broadly known as "contingency management" in the medical literature, has repeatedly shown to be effective in treating substance abuse. However, the use of incentives by treatment facilities remains extremely low. Furthermore, it is not well understood how to design optimal incentives to treat opioid abuse. This project will conduct a randomized evaluation of two types of dynamically adjusting incentive schedules for people with opioid use disorders or cocaine use disorders: "escalating" schedules where incentive amounts increase with success to increase incentive power, and "de-escalating" schedules where incentive amounts decrease with success to improve incentive targeting. Both schemes are implemented with a novel "turnkey" mobile application, making them uniquely low-cost, low-hassle, and scalable. Effects will be measured on abstinence outcomes, including longest duration of abstinence and the percentage of negative drug tests. In combination with survey data, variation from the experiment will shed light on the barriers to abstinence more broadly and inform the understanding of optimal incentive design.
Detailed description
Over the past decade, the annual number of drug-related deaths more than doubled in the United States (Swensen, 2015). In particular, over the 2001-2013 period, overdose deaths involving prescription pain relievers tripled while those involving heroin increased fivefold (NIDA, 2015). Further, the COVID-19 pandemic is thought to have significantly increased drug use, especially opioids, cocaine, and methamphetamines. This upward-sloping trend has steepened in the past few years. Drug overdoses are now the principal cause of death among Americans aged less than 50. A primary cause of this escalating public health crisis is the abuse of opioids (e.g., prescription pain relievers and heroin), which is estimated to concern more than two million Americans (New York Times, 2017).
Many studies in the medical literature have tested whether providing incentives to encourage abstinence from drugs can further reduce drug abuse in a drug-treatment setting. The results are very promising: Incentives to reduce opioid abuse increase the average duration of abstinence by 25 - 60% relative to medication and counseling alone (Petry et al., 2005; Schottenfeld et al., 2005; Petry et al., 2010; Ling et al., 2013). Similar effects have been demonstrated repeatedly across a wealth of populations, substance-abuse disorders, and payment methodologies (Lussier et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2016; Higgins, 2016). A meta-analysis of psychosocial treatments concluded that providing incentives for abstinence behavior was the intervention with the greatest effect size in treating substance use disorders (Dutra et al., 2008). Despite their costs, incentive programs have been estimated to be cost-effective, with the estimated benefits - including benefits to participants and to taxpayers from lower health care costs and higher earnings - estimated to be on the order of 20 times as large as normal program costs (WSIPP, 2017). Although such estimates are somewhat speculative, the case for scaling up incentive programs is strong.
And yet, despite evidence that incentives are effective and the ever-more-dire need for effective approaches to combat the addiction crisis, incentive programs have not been scaled up widely to date. A key barrier is that while the benefits are largely borne by patients and taxpayers, there are large logistical costs that must be borne by clinics: existing incentive programs involve manual, in-person measurement of behaviors, and prize or voucher purchase and delivery by clinic staff. The significant clinic-level legwork necessary to set up these programs, including setting up behavioral and payment tracking systems, training staff, etc., have prevented the programs from scaling widely (Benishek et al., 2014).
We propose to conduct the first randomized evaluation of an innovative, scalable incentives program for drug addiction delivered through a mobile application. The application, which was developed by our implementing partner, DynamiCare Health (henceforth "DynamiCare"), provides a "turnkey" solution that health clinics can easily prescribe. The app enables remote monitoring of behavior; for example, drug tests can be administered in patients' homes, as patients submit "selfie-videos" showing them taking saliva drug tests, which are then verified by trained remote staff. Treatment adherence can similarly be checked through GPS tracking for on-site methadone pharmacotherapy. The efficacy of this approach has not been tested rigorously before.
This study will address two key knowledge gaps in the logistics of existing incentive program design for drug addiction. First, we will test the first technology that we know of for remote monitoring of abstinence behavior for drug use. Remote monitoring of abstinence from cigarettes and alcohol has been integral in reducing the costs and extending the potential reach of incentive programs for people with nicotine/tobacco and alcohol use disorders (e.g. to vulnerable or rural populations), and our study promises to do the same for illicit drug addiction (see for a review of remote monitoring technologies for incentive delivery). Our second gap is in remote delivery of incentives. After a behavior is verified, the app will deliver incentives to patients as cash available on a linked debit card. The delay between monitoring of the target behavior and the delivery of financial incentives has been shown to be a significant moderator of treatment effect size (Lussier, Heil, Mongeon, Badger, \& Higgins, 2006). Our technology allows patients to receive incentives almost immediately following the undertaking of the incentivized behavior: a first in incentives for drug addiction.
The second question is how to optimize the size of incentives over time to maximize incentive effectiveness. We propose to do this by randomly varying the size and timing of incentives offered to participants across groups. We will then use the variation in incentive amounts across participants and time to fit a structural model of abstinence behaviors over time. We will then use the model to describe the optimal shape of incentives over time.
The results of this intervention will be directly relevant for potential users of this or similar mobile applications for incentive provision among people with substance use disorders, including insurers, treatment facilities, and governments.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 7
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | Active comparator | Behavioral: Sham ControlParticipants in this group will have access to the DynamiCare app; however, no behavioral incentives will be provided to this group. |
| Escalating Low | Experimental | Behavioral: App-Based Contingency ManagementParticipants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every negative drug test up to a ceiling and "reset" to the lowest amount when a test is positive or missed. The "Low" group will receive incentives worth $2-$8. |
| Escalating High | Experimental | Behavioral: App-Based Contingency ManagementParticipants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every negative drug test up to a ceiling and "reset" to the lowest amount when a test is positive or missed. The "High" group will receive incentives worth $4-$16. |
| De-Escalating Low | Experimental | Behavioral: App-Based Contingency ManagementParticipants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every positive drug tests (up to a ceiling), and decrease by the same increment with every negative drug test (down to a floor). The "Low" group will receive incentives worth $6-12. |
| De-Escalating High | Experimental | Behavioral: App-Based Contingency ManagementParticipants will have access to the DynamiCare app. Through the app, participants will receive incentive amounts for drug negative saliva tests. Incentive amounts increase with every positive drug tests (up to a ceiling), and decrease by the same increment with every negative drug test (down to a floor). The "High" group will receive incentives worth $10-$20. |
| Constant High | Experimental | Behavioral: App-Based Contingency ManagementIn the Constant groups, incentive amounts will remain unchanged across time. The "High" group will receive incentives worth $16. |
| Constant Low | Experimental | Behavioral: App-Based Contingency ManagementIn the Constant groups, incentive amounts will remain unchanged across time. The "Low" group will receive incentives worth $8 every test. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Age at least 18 years old;
- Meet DSM-5 OUD, CoUD, or MUD criteria as evidenced by an OUD CPT code F11* (opioid related disorders), a CoUD CPT code F14* (cocaine related disorders), a MUD CPT code F15.1/F15.2 or other clinical notes indicating illicit opioid/cocaine/methamphetamine use for treatment
- Have access to a smartphone (iOS or Android) with data plan and willing to download DynamiCare app;
- Have an email and can access it from their smartphone;
- Are in residential, day (PHP), partial day (IOP), or outpatient (OP) AODA treatment;
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Have evidence of active (non-substance related) psychosis that might impair participation as determined by the PI.
- Has significant cognitive impairment that might confound participation as determined by the PI or are so significantly cognitively impaired that they have a legal guardian.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| App-Based Contingency ManagementParticipants will receive financial incentives for submitting randomly generated drug-negative saliva tests across the intervention period. | Behavioural | Constant High, Constant Low, De-Escalating High, De-Escalating Low, Escalating High, Escalating Low |
| Sham ControlParticipants get access to the DynamiCare app but will not be provided with financial incentives. | Behavioural | Control |
Primary outcome
Percent of Negative Saliva Tests
Time frame: month 3
Percent of tests negative for non-medical opioids, cocaine, or stimulant
Percent of App Acceptability
Time frame: month 12
Percent of eligible population which accepts app
4 secondary outcomes
Percent of Psychotherapy Visits Attended
Time frame: month 3
Percent of Treatment Discharge Against Medical Advice
Time frame: month 3
Percent of Relapse
Time frame: month 3
Percent of transition to step-down care
Time frame: Day 14
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 24750232Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kirby KC, Matejkowski J, Clements NT, Seymour BL, Festinger DS. Prize-based contingency management for the treatment of substance abusers: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2014 Sep;109(9):1426-36. doi: 10.1111/add.12589. Epub 2014 May 23.
- Background: PubMed 27514250Davis DR, Kurti AN, Skelly JM, Redner R, White TJ, Higgins ST. A review of the literature on contingency management in the treatment of substance use disorders, 2009-2014. Prev Med. 2016 Nov;92:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.008. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
- Background: PubMed 18198270Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Feb;165(2):179-87. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851. Epub 2008 Jan 15.
- Background: PubMed 24704135Higgins ST, Washio Y, Lopez AA, Heil SH, Solomon LJ, Lynch ME, Hanson JD, Higgins TM, Skelly JM, Redner R, Bernstein IM. Examining two different schedules of financial incentives for smoking cessation among pregnant women. Prev Med. 2014 Nov;68:51-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.024. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
- Background: PubMed 23226717Hutchinson ML, Chisolm MS, Tuten M, Leoutsakos JM, Jones HE. The efficacy of escalating and fixed contingency management reinforcement on illicit drug use in opioid-dependent pregnant women. Addict Disord Their Treat. 2012 Sep;11(3):150-153. doi: 10.1097/ADT.0b013e318264cf6d.
- Background: PubMed 23680075Kirby KC, Carpenedo CM, Dugosh KL, Rosenwasser BJ, Benishek LA, Janik A, Keashen R, Bresani E, Silverman K. Randomized clinical trial examining duration of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for cocaine abstinence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Oct 1;132(3):639-45. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.04.015. Epub 2013 May 13.
- Background: PubMed 20099951Lamb RJ, Kirby KC, Morral AR, Galbicka G, Iguchi MY. Shaping smoking cessation in hard-to-treat smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Feb;78(1):62-71. doi: 10.1037/a0018323.
- Background: PubMed 23734858Ling W, Hillhouse M, Ang A, Jenkins J, Fahey J. Comparison of behavioral treatment conditions in buprenorphine maintenance. Addiction. 2013 Oct;108(10):1788-98. doi: 10.1111/add.12266. Epub 2013 Jul 12.
- Background: PubMed 16445548Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006 Feb;101(2):192-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01311.x.
- Background: PubMed 22686494Packer RR, Howell DN, McPherson S, Roll JM. Investigating reinforcer magnitude and reinforcer delay: a contingency management analog study. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012 Aug;20(4):287-92. doi: 10.1037/a0027802. Epub 2012 Jun 11.
- Background: PubMed 16392974Petry NM, Alessi SM, Marx J, Austin M, Tardif M. Vouchers versus prizes: contingency management treatment of substance abusers in community settings. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Dec;73(6):1005-14. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1005.
- Background: PubMed 25198284Petry NM, Alessi SM, Barry D, Carroll KM. Standard magnitude prize reinforcers can be as efficacious as larger magnitude reinforcers in cocaine-dependent methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Jun;83(3):464-72. doi: 10.1037/a0037888. Epub 2014 Sep 8.
- New York Times (2017), "Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever",Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Opioid-use Disorder
RecruitingPhase 2
Targeting Treatment-Resistant OUD With Ketamine-Assisted Mindfulness Oriented Recovery Enhancement
Opioid Use Disorder
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Disease Intervention Specialist (DIS) for SUD
Substance Use Disorder (SUD), Opioid Use Disorder
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Development of an Interview-Informed Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) for Opioid Use in the Era of Fentanyl
Substance Use Disorders (SUDs)
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Evaluating Pain Control Strategies in Postpartum Patients on Opioid Use Disorder Medications.
Substance Use Disorder (SUD)
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study of Brenipatide in Participants With Opioid Use Disorder
Opioid Use Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Mercedes Robaina, PhD principal investigator
Advocate Aurora Behavioral Health Services
Ariel Zucker, PhD study director
University of California Santa Cruz
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing App-Based Contingency Management in people with Opioid-use Disorder and Cocaine Use Disorder, run by Wake Forest University Health Sciences at 2 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percent of Negative Saliva Tests (time frame: month 3). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04927143, which also lists 24 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Sep 2026.