Effective, but underused: lessons learned implementing contingency management in real-world practice settings in the United States

Abstract

Despite being one of the most effective adjunctive behavioral interventions in combination with medication for opioid use disorder, contingency management (CM) is one of the least available interventions in opioid treatment programs. This paradoxical state of affairs is perhaps the greatest example of the research-to-practice gap in the behavioral health field. Implementation science, a discipline that aims to identify replicable methods that can be used across settings and populations to bridge the gap between research and practice, can potentially help. Based on our team's experience implementing CM in opioid treatment programs, we detail five key lessons for researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and others seeking to implement and sustain CM in real-world settings. First, multiple barriers to CM implementation exist at both the counselor- and organization-levels, requiring multi-level solutions. Second, one-shot CM training alone is not sufficient for successful implementation: ongoing support is essential to achieve levels of intervention fidelity that will benefit patients. Third, assessing an organization's capacity for implementation prior to support provision can prevent costly mistakes. Fourth, implementors should plan for high staff turnover rates and expect the unexpected by developing detailed contingency plans. Finally, implementors should remember that the goal is to implement evidence-based CM and not simply incentives. We encourage colleagues to consider these lessons to increase the likelihood that CM can be implemented and sustained in a manner that improves the quality of care in opioid treatment programs.

Keywords: Addiction technology transfer center; Contingency management; Implementation; Incentives; Lessons; Training.