10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Experiences with SCRAMx alcohol monitoring technology in 100 alcohol treatment outpatients

      , ,
      Drug and Alcohol Dependence
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d6735193e130">Background</h5> <p id="P2">Transdermal alcohol monitoring technology allows for new research on alcohol use disorders. This study assessed feasibility, acceptability, and adherence with this technology in the context of two clinical research trials. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d6735193e135">Methods</h5> <p id="P3">Participants were the first 100 community-based alcohol treatment outpatients enrolled in randomized studies that monitored drinking with the secure continuous remote alcohol monitor (SCRAMx®) for 12 weeks. Study 1 participants were randomized to usual care ( <i>n</i>=36) or usual care with contingency management incentives for treatment attendance (CM-Att; <i>n</i>=30). Study 2 participants were randomized to usual care ( <i>n</i>=17) or usual care with CM for each day of no drinking per SCRAMx (CM-Abst; <i>n</i>=17). After 12 weeks, participants completed a survey about the bracelet. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d6735193e152">Results</h5> <p id="P4">Nine percent of individuals screened (54 of 595) declined participation because of the bracelet. Of participants, 84% provided 12 weeks of data, and 96% of bracelets were returned fully intact. Ninety-four equipment tampers occurred, affecting 2% of monitoring days; 56% (67) of tampers coincided with detected drinking. Common concerns reported by participants were skin marks (58%), irritation (54%), and interfered with clothing choices (51%), but severity ratings were generally mild (60%-94%). Eighty-one percent of participants reported that the bracelet helped them reduce drinking, and 75% indicated that they would wear it for longer. A common suggestion for improvement was to reduce the size of the bracelet. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d6735193e157">Conclusions</h5> <p id="P5">Results support the viability of transdermal monitoring in voluntary substance abuse treatment participants for an extended duration. Issues to consider for future applications of this technology are discussed. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Assessment of Alcohol Withdrawal: the revised clinical institute withdrawal assessment for alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar)

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: state of the science and challenges for research.

            To review three topics pertaining to the validity of alcohol self-reports: factors that influence response accuracy; the relative merits of different self-report approaches; and the utility of using alternative measures to confirm verbal reports. Response behavior is influenced by the interaction of social context factors, respondent characteristics, and task attributes. Although research has advanced our knowledge about self-report methods, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, there is a need to investigate how task demands interact with different patterns of drinking behavior to affect response accuracy. There is also a continuing need to use multiple data sources to examine the extent of self-report response bias, and to determine whether it varies as a function of respondent characteristics or assessment timing. Self-report methods offer a reliable and valid approach to measuring alcohol consumption. The accuracy of such methods, however, can be improved by research directed at understanding the processes involved in response behavior.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Give them prizes, and they will come: contingency management for treatment of alcohol dependence.

              This study evaluated the efficacy of a contingency management (CM) procedure that provided opportunities to win prizes as reinforcers. At intake to outpatient treatment, 42 alcohol-dependent veterans were randomly assigned to receive standard treatment or standard treatment plus CM, in which they earned the chance to win prizes for submitting negative Breathalyzer samples and completing steps toward treatment goals. Eighty-four percent of the CM participants were retained in treatment for an 8-week period compared with 22% of the standard treatment participants (p < .001). By the end of the treatment period, 69% of those receiving CM were still abstinent, but 61% of those receiving standard treatment had used alcohol (p < .05). These results support the efficacy of this CM procedure. Participants earned an average of $200 in prizes. This CM procedure may be suitable for use in standard treatment settings because prizes can be solicited from the community.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Drug and Alcohol Dependence
                Drug and Alcohol Dependence
                Elsevier BV
                03768716
                September 2017
                September 2017
                : 178
                :
                : 417-424
                Article
                10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.031
                5569301
                28709081
                a77f7c77-f64d-4139-81da-684960f83d32
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article