IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0341359.html

Patient preferences for incentives in Contingency Management interventions in methadone treatment: A best-worst scale analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Thuy Thi Dieu Dao
  • Hue Thi Nguyen
  • Trang Thu Nguyen
  • Thuyet Thi Phung
  • Van Hai Hoang
  • Huong Thi Le
  • Brian W Pence
  • Giang Minh Le
  • Vivian F Go
  • William C Miller

Abstract

Background: Contingency management (CM) effectively enhances adherence and retention in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). But implementing CM in resource-limited settings is challenging, particularly due to costs associated with providing incentives. In this study, we aimed to describe and quantify patient preferences regarding low-cost CM incentives to promote adherence and retention in MMT. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a best-worst scale (case 1) among 216 participants ages 18 or older undergoing MMT in six clinics in Hanoi, Vietnam. The study asked participants to complete 13 sets of best-worst scaling tasks. Each task presented a subset of four incentives chosen from a total of 13 incentives. Net scores for each incentive were calculated by subtracting the total times an incentive was rated as least appealing from the total times it was rated as most appealing. Standardized scores were derived by dividing the net score by the sum of selections and then converted to weighted probabilities (WP) that ranged from 0% to 100% (example interpretation: an incentive with WP of 20% is twice as desired as an incentive with WP of 10%). The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using bootstrapping. Results: The mean age of participants was 44.7 (SD = 8.0, range: 25–66). Most were male (95%), married (59%), and had not completed high school (69%). About half (50%) had been on methadone treatment for more than five years. The most preferred incentives were “discount for monthly methadone fees” (WP = 16.9, 95% CI: 16.0, 17.8) and “take-home methadone privileges” (WP = 11.3, 95% CI: 10.1, 12.6), followed by “priority coupons for early medical examinations/consultations”. In contrast, the least preferred incentives were “being recognized/praised in their community” (WP = 4.5, 95% CI: 4.0, 5.0) and “being recognized/praised at their clinic” (WP = 4.7, 95% CI: 4.1, 5.4). Conclusions: Treatment fee support, take-home methadone privilege, and coupons for prioritizing checkup at clinics emerged as the most desirable incentives for patients. We recommend future CM intervention may consider using these incentives as the first-line rewards to offer to reinforce treatment adherence and retention in methadone treatment. These findings suggest potential low-cost CM strategies that could inform decision-making in MMT programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Thuy Thi Dieu Dao & Hue Thi Nguyen & Trang Thu Nguyen & Thuyet Thi Phung & Van Hai Hoang & Huong Thi Le & Brian W Pence & Giang Minh Le & Vivian F Go & William C Miller, 2026. "Patient preferences for incentives in Contingency Management interventions in methadone treatment: A best-worst scale analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0341359
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0341359
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0341359&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0341359?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0341359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.