Contingency Management in Canadian Addiction Treatment: Provider Attitudes and Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Contingency management (CM) is an evidence-based treatment for addictive disorders that is underused in clinical practice. The attitudes of staff are frequently reported as barriers to the uptake and use of evidence-based treatments, including CM. Understanding these barriers is an important step in implementation and could have an impact on an intervention's efficacy. We investigated Canadian addiction treatment providers' (ATPs) beliefs and use of CM. METHOD: = 298 respondents; female = 210, male = 80, other = 8) who offered services to help clients reduce substance use in their program(s). RESULTS: Providers in 103 programs across all 10 Canadian provinces participated (26.2% response rate). Most were not familiar with CM and reported largely neutral attitudes toward it. Training-related barriers to CM were the most highly endorsed compared with other barriers. Most ATPs reported a desire for additional training in CM. Some denied wanting additional training because of concerns about CM, which was consistent with previous literature. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that successful implementation of evidence-based treatments requires consideration of provider-level characteristics including attitudes, knowledge, and concerns about the intervention. Results highlight the importance of integrating training with efforts to address systemic-level barriers to implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".