Preferences for Smartphone Versus In‐Person Delivery of Contingency Management: A Web‐Based Survey of Australians Who Use Methamphetamine
Rebecca McKetin, Annelies L. Robijn, Simon Clay, Shalini Arunogiri, Samantha Colledge‐Frisby, Alison D. Marshall, Louisa Degenhardt, Rachel Sutherland, Long Nguyen, Michael Christmass, Zachary Wilkinson, Dean Membrey, Paul McCartney, Jack Nagle, Tayla Degan, Michael Farrell, Meredith GinleyABSTRACT
Introduction
Smartphone delivery of contingency management (CM) could overcome barriers to dissemination of this effective treatment for methamphetamine use. We quantified help‐seeking intentions for CM and preferences for smartphone versus in‐person delivery of CM amongst people who used methamphetamine.
Methods
An open web‐based cross‐sectional survey of 220 Australian residents who had used methamphetamine weekly or more often in the past year was conducted. Help‐seeking intentions for CM were compared to other available treatment options using the General Help Seeking Questionnaire. Preferences for three CM models: in‐person voucher‐based CM, in‐person prize‐based CM and a smartphone‐delivered model of CM, were sought, along with preferences for other aspects of CM delivery.
Results
Help‐seeking intentions were similar for CM and other treatment options (82% vs. 76%–81% likely to seek help). Smartphone delivery of CM was preferred by 43% of participants (cf. 27% for in‐person voucher CM and 30% for in‐person prize draw CM). Overall, other preferences were for a fixed (predictable) reinforcement schedule (78%), cash (53%) or gift card (40%) rewards rather than merchandise (7%), and adjunctive support (78%) – mostly counselling (50%) and withdrawal management (43%). Participants wanted a median minimum payment of $69 (interquartile range $58–$77) to start CM, and a minimal median potential earnings of $4000 (interquartile range $3600–$4500) over a 12‐week program.
Discussion and Conclusions
We found strong potential demand for smartphone‐delivered CM, although adjunctive counselling and withdrawal management would be needed and incentives may need to be larger than those used in conventional CM models.