Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3232679

Ten Take Home Lessons from the First Ten Years of the CTN and Ten Recommendations for the Future


The first ten years of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Clinical Trials Network (CTN) yielded a wealth of data on the effectiveness of a number of behavioral, pharmacologic, and combined approaches in community based settings. As an introduction to this Special Issue on the CTN, we summarize some of the methodological contributions and lessons learned from the behavioral trials conducted during its first ten years, including the capacity and enormous potential of this national research infrastructure; contributions to the methodology of effectiveness research; new insights from secondary analyses; the extent to which approaches with strong evidence bases, such as contingency management, extend their effectiveness to real world clinical settings; new data on ‘standard treatment’ as actually practiced in community programs, the extent to which retention remains a major issue in the field; important data on the safety of specific behavioral therapies for addiction; and heightened the importance of continued sustained attention to bridging the gap between treatment and research. Possible areas of focus for the CTN’s future include defining common outcome measures to be used in treatment outcome studies for illicit drugs; incorporating performance indicators and measures of clinical significance; conducting comparative outcome studies; contributing to the understanding of effective treatments of comorbidity; reaching underserved populations; building implementation science; understanding long-term outcomes of current treatments and sustaining treatment effects; and conducting future trials more efficiently.


In its first ten years, the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) built a national research infrastructure to address the gap between research and practice in addiction treatment (1) and conducted over 25 randomized trials involving over 11,000 participants in over 200 community treatment programs (2). These trials involved pharmacological, behavioral and combined interventions and focused on a range of addiction-related problems and populations. This large research-clinical collaboration generated a wealth of research reports describing primary and secondary outcomes, novel dissemination materials and innovations, as well as multiple ancillary studies. The CTN has also generated a number of methodological advances and contributions relevant to Stage III dissemination and hybrid research. To set the stage for this special issue on methodological issues in the CTN, this article will provide an overview of some of the most important methodological lessons learned from the first ten years of the CTN, discuss implications for future studies, and briefly speculate as to potential contributions over its next ten years.

Top Ten Take Home Lessonss from the CTN’s First Ten Years

1. The CTN has successfully established a research-clinical partnership and built a multifaceted infrastructure

The 1998 Institute of Medicine Report (1) on the gap between research and practice in addiction treatment, which was the impetus for NIDA’s development of the CTN (3), articulated the need for more collaboration between researchers and practitioners, but also emphasized considerable tensions between these groups. Several features in the structure of the CTN led to rapid progress in initiating clinically-relevant protocols. The most important of these was ‘bidirectionality’, which ensured that the community-based treatment providers, or CTPs, were on equal footing with investigators regarding governance and protocol development. The structure provided for equal numbers of investigators and providers on all major decision-making bodies, facilitating selection of clinically-relevant protocols with designs informed by considerations of public health impact. Substantial CTP roles in protocol development and planning prevented common problems that often undermine community based research. While early trials were comparatively simple two-group designs, the research capability of the CTN has matured such that it has successfully completed complex FDA-level medication trials, genetic studies, and trials with sophisticated adaptive designs (4).

2. CTN has developed methodology for effectiveness research

Another major contribution of the CTN has been in articulation of methodological strategies for dissemination and effectiveness research, particularly for behavioral trials. Prior to the CTN, strategies for standard efficacy trials were comparatively well established (5, 6), and NIDA’s Behavioral Therapies Development branch played a critical role in articulating the Stage model of behavioral therapies development (7, 8). Although methodological standards for Stage I (feasibility and initial evaluation) and II (efficacy testing) research were well established, standards and strategies for Stage III (dissemination) research had been much less clear (9) The CTN made multiple contributions to this area, including articulation of the ‘hybrid’ model for effectiveness research, which retains key features of efficacy research (such as randomization, integrity of the independent variable) but which includes multiple features of effectiveness research (10). Other contributions have been made in articulation of models for training clinicians (11), strategies for selection of comparison conditions (4), and consideration of dissemination and sustainability (10, 12).

3. The CTN has demonstrated the value of secondary analyses

Well-designed trials yield far more than confirmations or refutations of primary hypotheses, in that secondary analyses often produce findings that address important questions and spark new areas of research. CTN trials have already produced scores of reports based on secondary analyses ( These include findings pointing to staging of therapies for substance using women with PTSD (13), the efficacy of contingency management extends to methamphetamine users (14), and that empirically validated therapies (EVTs) are efficacious among subgroups including ethnic minorities (15).

4. CTN research has provided support for EVTs in real world settings

Another important conclusion drawn from the initial set of CTN trials is that treatments with strong prior efficacy data fared well in CTN trials, whereas more novel therapies or those with less substantial evidence bases tended not to outperform comparison conditions (16). While this may reflect the efficacy of those therapies that are ‘tried and true’ prior to evaluation in the CTN, it may also reflect that treatments with extensive histories of evaluation carry with them refined training, implementation and outcome selection protocols that may facilitate their evaluation in multi-site trials. Furthermore, although many of the effect sizes from CTN trials have been modest, it should be noted that the bulk of CTN trials have used ‘active’ control comparisons (e.g., treatment as usual), and hence effect sizes are expected to be smaller than if less stringent control conditions, such as attention or wait list controls had been used (17, 18).

5. CTN research has confirmed the power of incentives

Consistent with a strong and consistent prior evidence base (19, 20), contingency management (CM) interventions demonstrated large short-term effects on stimulant use in both methadone and outpatient settings (21, 22). These trials also extended the evidence base by demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of prize-based CM (23-25) and highlighted the broad utility of CM effectiveness by demonstrating efficacy in a subgroup of methamphetamine users (14). Successful implementation of contingency management in 11 CTPs and positive results of the CTN trials appears to have fostered dissemination efforts and greater acceptance of CM principles in CTN-affiliated community programs (26).

6. CTN research has provided a peek into ’treatment as usual’ (TAU)

Another important by-product of CTN trials is extensive data on the content and efficacy of TAU. In the many CTN trials which have used TAU as a comparison condition(4), outcomes are typically quite positive in terms of retention and level of substance use (27). For example, while multiple previous studies noted extremely high levels of attrition among Spanish-speaking substance users in outpatient treatment (28), retention in both arms of the CTN study of MET delivered in Spanish was excellent, with over 90% of participants still enrolled one month after randomization (29). It is not clear if this reflects (1) particularly high quality treatment associated with CTN-affiliated programs (30, 31), (2) the influence of issues related to clinical trials methods, including participant selection factors or the comparatively high level of patient and protocol monitoring that occurs in many randomized clinical trials, or (3) standard treatments may be more effective than they often assumed to be. Thus, even when modest, the presence of significant effects over TAU for the EVT evaluated in the CTN is noteworthy.

7. The importance of retention

Another conclusion that may be drawn from CTN studies is that retention remains a major issue in substance abuse treatment (16), particularly for those trials that have focused on detoxification and the early phases of treatment (32, 33). Retention remains a good predictor of longer-term outcome in the addictions, and multiple CTN studies have found modest rates of treatment exposure and retention in heterogeneous populations and settings. This suggests the field still has a long way to go to develop interventions, and a treatment system, that attracts and retains larger proportions of those who need treatment.

8. Contributing to the debates regarding safety of behavioral treatments

CTN trials include independent monitoring and review, involving multiple university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs). These procedures followed the NIH 1998 policy requiring all Stage III trials, including behavioral trials, to have a DSMB to ensure safety of participants. While utilization of NIH procedures originally designed for medication trials resulted in a tremendous volume of adverse events reports, it also generated an opportunity to systematically evaluate rates of FDA-defined serious adverse events (SAEs) in large behavioral trials. Using data from four CTN studies (21, 22, 34, 35) which involved nearly 1700 participants, SAEs were found to be common, occurring in about 10% of all participants. However, not only were the rates of SAEs comparable in the usual care and experimental conditions (CM and motivation interviewing), but the DSMB also determined that none of the SAEs were study-related (36). A similar analysis of the incidence of gambling in the trials of prize-based CM also indicated no increase in gambling (37). These data have led to articulation of more refined approaches for evaluating SAEs in behavioral trials see (36, 38).

9. Bridging the gap takes time and sustained attention

Another finding emerging from the CTN’s unique ability to conduct comprehensive evaluations of TAU is evidence that EVTs are still not yet broadly implemented in practice. For example, independent processs ratings of almost 500 sessions of TAU from early CTN trials suggested that interventions associated with specific EVTs were implemented infrequently and rarely at levels of adequately levels of fidelity (39-41). Moreover, with respect to ratings by independent raters and expert supervisors, clinicians consistently overestimated the level of EVTs they used in sessions (42) Multiple, sustained efforts are still needed to bridge the gap between research and practice (43).

10. Effort, support, and commitment are essential for adopting and sustaining EVTs

The CTN has also demonstrated that adoption of EVTs carries with it substantial cost and organizational commitment. Costs of behavioral therapies include the interventions themselves, as well as training and supervision. The CTN has included evaluations of costs in several trials (23, 25, 44); these have moved the field forward in demonstrating that the extra costs associated with implementing specific EVTs such as contingency management may vary widely across different clinics (24). Although complex, these analyses are critical in helping policy makers decide if the extra costs of adopting EVTs are justified.

Top Ten Recommendations for the CTN’s Next Ten Years

Even with its many accomplishments and successes, the CTN has only been able to address a portion of the many challenges in addictions treatment. We next focus on a sample of methodological and research issues that are ripe for development for the CTN and more broadly for the field.

1. Need for a common outcome measure in drug addiction treatment trials

Although a common battery of assessments was used in many CTN trials, comparisons of participant outcomes across studies are not straightforward because different outcomes were used (e.g. percent of days abstinent from primary drug, self-report versus urinalysis, retention; see (16) for overview). As each study selected a primary outcome based on its hypotheses and aims, there has been no ‘common denominator’ outcome measure that would provide a means of comparing outcomes across CTN trials. This has made it difficult to interpret findings when experimental treatments are not significantly different from TAU, to understand site effects, or to ‘benchmark’ outcomes across studies. Common outcomes have been adopted in other areas of mental health, including trials for nicotine (45) and alcohol dependence (46, 47). The variability in patterns of substance use and their half lives are some factors that make it difficult to identify a single outcome measure; nevertheless, lack of a common outcome is a critical weakness in the drug treatment field. The various datasets generated by CTN trials should be used to inform this process, by identifying proxy markers of long-term outcome and reporting these consistently.

2. Incorporating performance indices and measures of clinical significance

CTN trials have relied on traditional methods of significance testing and estimations of effect size. These are important in many respects but also marked by clear limitations in terms of informing practical decisions about treatment choice, policy, and impact (48-50). Indices marking clinically significant improvement have increasingly been adopted in treatment for alcohol use disorders (51, 52) but remain rare for illicit drug use (53). Both the addiction research and treatment systems also lack consensus indicators of quality and performance that are now common in most areas of medicine. However, addiction treatment programs are not likely to have, or share, data regarding their outcomes so that individuals seeking treatment can make informed decisions regarding likely outcomes or provides success rates for different procedures or programs. Defining a set of common outcome-based performance measures would be extremely complex, but it is likely that development of consensus performance indicators would be likely to spur significant efforts to improve treatment outcome.

3. Comparative effectiveness studies

Progress in research on treatment for a range of addictions has generated a large number of science-based treatments, but comparatively little data that can be used to help clinicians and policy makers choose among available validated pharmacotherapies or behavioral therapies (12); that is, there are relatively few direct comparisons of different active therapies (i.e., comparative effectiveness research) (54). The size and scope of the CTN makes it well positioned to address complex issues regarding the relative efficacy of available treatments, in line with NIH priorities (55) and calls from the public.

4. Addressing comorbidity

To date, the CTN has completed only two trials on populations with co-occurring psychiatric illness (56, 57). Continued attention to comorbidity research in the CTN is very important, as a substantial number of substance-dependent patients have psychiatric illness, and optimal approaches to so-called “dually diagnosed” patients have not been identified.. Studying comorbid patients is difficult, in part because of their heterogeneity in terms of issues such variability in different Axis I and II disorders, drugs of abuse, illness severity, and use of psychotropic medications. Although studying more homogeneous populations (e.g., patients with bipolar I disorder with cocaine dependence who are taking valproate) is methodologically “cleaner,” such findings are unlikely to be generalizable. The CTN, with its capacity to involve multiple sites with large numbers of diverse patients, is an ideal platform for clinically meaningful comorbidity research.

5. Mechanisms of action

Clinical trials are generally designed to answer basic questions of clinical or comparative effectiveness. While this type of information is essential for clinical decision making, it does not address the underlying mechanisms influencing drug use and other outcomes. This is especially so in the case of behavior therapies, since medications generally (though not always) have a known pharmacological action directly related to the outcome of interest (e.g. blockade of opioid reinforcement by naltrexone). Behavioral therapies are usually predicated on a theoretical or conceptual underpinning that suggests a mechanism of action. In fact, however, the mediating mechanisms of behavior change have been difficult to identify (58, 59). CTN trials provide a rich opportunity for more in-depth investigation of mechanisms of behavior change, and hence the potential to enhance the power and efficiency of treatment.

6. Studying dissemination as a means of building implementation science

The transfer of knowledge from bench to bedside is a universal challenge in medical practice, with substance abuse treatment being no exception (9). There are at least two ways in which this transfer is encouraged within the world of providers. The first is professional licensing requirements for continuing education, but this does not ensure such practices are learned in sufficient depth to be used in practice or that they will in fact be adopted. A second pathway is through funding requirements, such as program payments that depend on assurance that EVTs are being used. Alternatively, programs may be paid bonuses based on achieving targeted clinical outcomes (60) with the expectation that adoption of EVTs will improve outcomes. Neither approach, however, is grounded in evidence regarding the most effective, or cost-effective methods of improving treatment (e.g., what are the best strategies to train practitioners in EVTs? What supports are needed for clinical programs to encourage their adoption of EVTs or to implement them with adequate fidelity?) As in other areas of medicine, there is a tremendous need to understand more about the most effective methods for promoting adoption of evidence-based practices (61, 62). The CTN, with its branching network of community treatment providers, presents an ideal infrastructure in which to conduct implementation science.

7. Reaching those we don’t reach

Only a minority of individuals who meet diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders access specialty care services (63-65). There are multiple reasons for this gap, including lack of access to care, lack of treatment financing (66), scarcity of trained clinicians, lack of interest in seeking treatment, and stigma. The CTN has begun to address this issue in a new protocol evaluating the efficacy of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (67) in emergency department settings. Future CTN studies should explore integration of treatment in settings such as primary medical, HIV, or dental care. Technology also holds promise for increasing treatment access, effectiveness, and availability, particularly for underserved populations (68, 69); the CTN has initiated a study evaluating computer-based treatment (70). Additionally, strategies developed to improve healthcare by making them more patient-centered and customized to patient needs (e.g., adaptive treatment strategies) have been advocated (71) and provide another potential CTN focus.

8. Sustainability of treatment effects

In addition to better understanding initial effects of interventions, a more thorough evaluation of long-term effects is necessary. To date, CTN trials have focused primarily on short-term approaches to treat addiction. For example, the bulk of CTN pharmacotherapy trials have focused on detoxification, and many of the behavioral trials have evaluated brief approaches. Follow-up evaluations have also been comparatively short, usually up to six months after the end of treatment (16). Although this short-term focus has been appropriate and pragmatic, addiction is now widely acknowledged as a chronic relapsing condition (72). Thus, understanding how these interventions fare over the long-term is important from patient and societal perspectives.. This is especially true since many interventions require training and implementation costs, which public payors ultimately will have to support. A large diverse network like the CTN could accurately capture long-term success rates as well as societal benefits that may be realized from implementation of effective treatments.

9. Longer-term trials and benchmarking

Adding longer term-follow ups to future CTN studies, while expensive, may be justified in helping both the scientific and treatment communities better understand the course of addiction across the lifespan and the role of interventions in affecting its course in individuals. Data from longer-term outcome and longitudinal studies are needed to design adaptive interventions and evaluate continuing care models (73). Data from longer-term trials could also be used to develop benchmarks, that is, empirically-grounded expectations regarding outcome that can be used to set standards by which new or existing interventions could be compared. This could provide important guidance to policy makers, treatment providers and patients about what to expect from different programs.

10. Conducting trials more efficiently

A major challenge facing the CTN is the need to enhance efficiency and produce more findings more rapidly in the years ahead (74). Application of contingency management principles may be particularly helpful in this regard, in that the flexibility of behavioral targets for CM enables these interventions to be used to enhance retention in trials, treatment exposure, and medication adherence in CTN trials. Multisite trials are very expensive; hence, substantial delays in recruitment, low rates of adherence, and loss of participants to follow-up add to these costs. Contingency management might be used as an optimal behavioral platform in large scale trials to enhance treatment adherence and foster higher rates of data acquisition and availability by reinforcing adherence with assessments (75), particularly for efficacy or proof-of-concept studies where generalizability is less crucial.


This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the form of individual Clinical Trials Network grants to Yale University (U10 DA13038), the University of Washington (U10 DA 013714), Johns Hopkins University (U10 DA 13034) and McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA (U10 DA015831). Additional support was provided by NIDA grants P30-DA023918 (NMP), K24 DA022288 (RDW), and P50 DA 09241(KMC, SAB, SM). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA.


1. Institute of Medicine . Bridging the Gap Between Practice and Research: Forging Partnerships with Community-Based Drug and Alcohol Treatment. National Academy Press; Washington, DC: 1998. [PubMed]
2. Tai B, Straus MM, Liu D, Sparenborg S, Jackson R, McCarty D. The first decade of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: bridging the gap between research and practice to improve drug abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S4–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Hanson GR, Leshner AI, Tai B. Putting drug abuse research to work in real-life settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;23:69–70. [PubMed]
4. Nunes EV, Ball SA, Booth R, Brigham G, Calsyn DA, Carroll KM, Feaster DJ, Hien D, Hubbard RL, Ling W, Petry NM, Rotrosen J, Selzer J, Stitzer M, Tross S, Wakim P, Winhusen T, Woody G. Multisite effectiveness trials of treatments for substance abuse and co-occurring problems: have we chosen the best designs? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S97–112. PMCID: PMC2909698. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Chambless DL, Hollon SD. Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1998;66(1):7–18. [PubMed]
6. Chambless DL, Ollendick TH. Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52:685–716. [PubMed]
7. Onken LS, Blaine JD, Battjes R. Behavioral therapy research: A conceptualization of a process. In: Hennegler SW, Amentos R, editors. Innovative Approaches for Difficult to Treat Populations. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, D.C.: 1997. pp. 477–485.
8. Rounsaville BJ, Carroll KM, Onken LS. A stage model of behavioral therapies research: Getting started and moving on from Stage I. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2001;8:133–142.
9. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network; Tampa: FL: 2005. (FMHI Publication #231)
10. Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ. Bridging the gap between research and practice in substance abuse treatment: A hybrid model linking efficacy and effectiveness research. Psychiatric Services. 2003;54:333–339. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Baer JS, Ball SA, Campbell BK, Miele GM, Schoener EP, Tracy K. Training and fidelity monitoring of behavioral interventions in multi-site addictions research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;87:107–118. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ. A vision of the next generation of behavioral therapies research in the addictions. Addiction. 2007;102(6):850–62. discussion 863-9. PMCID: PMC2148498. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Hien DA, Jiang H, Campbell AN, Hu MC, Miele GM, Cohen LR, Brigham GS, Capstick C, Kulaga A, Robinson J, Suarez-Morales L, Nunes EV. Do treatment improvements in PTSD severity affect substance use outcomes? A secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial in NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;167(1):95–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Roll JM, Petry NM, Stitzer ML, Brecht ML, Peirce JM, McCann MJ, Blaine J, Macdonald M, Dimaria J, Lucero L, Kellogg S. Contingency management for the treatment of methamphetamine use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(11):1993–9. [PubMed]
15. Burlew AK, Feaster D, Brecht ML, Hubbard R. Measurement and data analysis in research addressing health disparities in substance abuse. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;36(1):25–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Wells EA, Saxon AJ, Calsyn DA, Jackson TR, Donovan DM. Study results from the Clinical Trials Network’s first 10 years: where do they lead? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S14–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Mohr DC, Spring B, Freedland KE, Beckner V, Arean P, Hollon SD, Ockene J, Kaplan R. The selection and design of control conditions for randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2009;78(5):275–284. [PubMed]
18. Kazdin AE. Comparative outcome studies of psychotherapy: Methodological issues and strategies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1986;54:95–105. [PubMed]
19. Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2008;165(2):179–187. [PubMed]
20. Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney JW, Greenwell L, Roll JM. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Addiction. 2006;101:1546–1560. [PubMed]
21. Peirce JM, Petry NM, Stitzer ML, Blaine JD, Kellog S, Satterfield F, Schwartz M, Krasnansky J, Pencer E, Silva-Vazquez L, Kirby KC, Royer-Malvestuto C, Roll JM, Cohen A, Copersino ML, Kolodner K, Li R, for the Clinical Trials Network Effects of lower-cost incentives on stimulant abstinence in methadone maintenance treatment: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2006;63:201–208. [PubMed]
22. Petry NM, Peirce JM, Stitzer ML, Blaine JD, Roll JM, Cohen A, Obert J, Killeen T, Saladin ME, Cowell M, Kirby KC, Sterling R, Royer-Malvestuto C, Hamilton J, Booth RE, Macdonald M, Liebert M, Rader L, Burns R, DiMaria J, Copersino ML, Stabile PO, Kolodner K, Li R, for the Clinical Trials Network Effect of prize-based incentives on outcomes in stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs: A national drug abuse Clinical Trials Network study. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2006;62:1148–1156. [PubMed]
23. Olmstead TA, Sindelar JL, Petry NM. Cost-effectiveness of prize-based incentives for stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;87:175–182. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Olmstead TA, Sindelar JL, Petry NM. Clinic variation in the cost-effectiveness of contingency management. The American Journal on the Addictions. 2007;16(6):457–460. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Sindelar JL, Olmstead TA, Peirce J. Cost-effectiveness of prize-based contingency management in methadone maintenance programs. Addiction. 2007;102:1463–1471. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Kirby KC, Benishek LA, Dugosh KL, Kerwin ME. Substance abuse treatment providers’ beliefs and objections regarding contingency management: implications for dissemination. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;85(1):19–27. [PubMed]
27. Simpson DD, Joe GW, Brown BS. Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 1997;11:294–307.
28. Amaro H, Arevalo S, Gonzalez G, Szapocznik J, Iguchi MY. Needs and scientific opportunities for research on substance abuse treatments among Hispanic adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006;84S:S64–S75. [PubMed]
29. Carroll KM, Martino S, Suarez-Morales L, Ball SA, Miller WR, Rosa C, Anez LM, Paris MP, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Matthews J, Szapocznik J. A multisite randomized effectiveness study of motivational enhancement therapy for Spanish-speaking substance abusers. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 2009;77:993–999. PMCID: PMC 2792592. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Ducharme LJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM, Johnson JA. Innovation adoption in substance abuse treatment: exposure, trialability, and the Clinical Trials Network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(4):321–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. McCarty D, Fuller B, Kaskutas LA, Wendt WW, Nunes EV, Miller M, Forman R, Magruder KM, Arfken C, Copersino M, Floyd A, Sindelar J, Edmundson E. Treatment programs in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;92(1-3):200–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Ling W, Amass L, Shoptaw S, Annon JJ, Hillhouse M, Babcock D, Brigham G, Harrer J, Reid MC, Muir J, Buchan B, Orr D, Woody GE, Krejci J, Ziedonis D, for the Buprenorphine/Naloxone Collaborative Study Group A multicenter randomized trial of buprenorphine-naloxone versus clonidine for opioid detoxification: Findings from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Addiction. 2005;100:1090–1100. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Woody GE, Poole SA, Subramaniam G, Dugosh K, Bogenschutz M, Abbott P, Patkar A, Publicker M, McCain K, Potter JS, Forman R, Vetter V, McNicholas L, Blaine J, Lynch KG, Fudala P. Extended vs short-term buprenorphine-naloxone for treatment of opioid-addicted youth: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;300(17):2003–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Ball SA, Martino S, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Van Horn D, Crits-Christoph P, Woody GE, Obert JL, Farentinos C, Carroll KM. Site matters: Multisite randomized trial of motivational enhancement therapy in community drug abuse clinics. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 2007;75(4):556–567. PMCID: PMC2148493. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Carroll KM, Ball SA, Nich C, Martino S, Frankforter T, Crits-Christoph P, Farentinos C, Mikulich-Gilbertson S, Morgenstern J, Obert JL, Polcin D, Snead N, G.E. W, for the Clinical Trials Network Motivational interviewing to improve treatment engagement and outcome in individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse: A multisite effectiveness study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006;81:301–312. PMCID: PMC2386852. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Petry NM, Roll JM, Rounsaville BJ, Ball SA, Stitzer M, Peirce JM, Blaine J, Kirby KC, McCarty D, Carroll KM. Serious adverse events in randomized psychosocial treatment studies: safety or arbitrary edicts? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2008;76(6):1076–82. PMCID: PMC2756150. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Petry NM, Kolodner KB, Li R, Peirce JM, Roll JM, Stitzer ML, Hamilton JA. Prize-based contingency management does not increase gambling. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83(3):269–73. [PubMed]
38. Barlow DH. Negative effects from psychological treatments: a perspective. American Psychologist. 2010;65(1):13–20. [PubMed]
39. Santa Ana E, Martino S, Ball SA, Nich C, Carroll KM. What is usual about ‘treatment as usual’: Audiotaped ratings of standard treatment in the Clinical Trials Network. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2008;35:369–379. PMCID: PMC2712113. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Bamatter W, Carroll KM, Anez LM, Paris M, Jr., Ball SA, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Suarez-Morales L, Szapocznik J, Martino S. Informal discussions in substance abuse treatment sessions with Spanish-speaking clients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;39(4):353–363. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Martino S, Ball SA, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Carroll KM. Informal discussions in substance abuse treatment sessions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2009;36(4):366–75. PMCID: PMC2705985. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
42. Martino S, Ball S, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Carroll KM. Correspondence of motivational enhancement treatment integrity ratings among therapists, supervisors, and observers. Psychotherapy Research. 2009;19(2):181–93. PMCID: PMC2782382. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Martino S, Brigham G, Higgins C, Gallon S, Freese TE, Albright LM, Hulsey EG, Storti SA, Perl H, Nugent CD, Pintello D, Condon TP. Partnerships and pathways of dissemination: The NIDA-SAMHSA blending initiative in the clinical trials network. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;38(Supplement 1):S31–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Sindelar JL, Ebel B, Petry NM. What do we get for our money: Cost-effectiveness of adding contingency management. Addiction. 2007;102:309–316. [PubMed]
45. Hughes JR, Benowitz N, Hatsukami D, Mermelstein RJ, Shiffman S. Clarification of SRNT workgroup guidelines for measures in clinical trials of smoking cessation therapies. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2004;6(5):863–864. [PubMed]
46. Anton RE, Randall CL. Measurement and choice of drinking outcome variables in the COMBINE Study. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2005;15:104–9. discussion 92-3. [PubMed]
47. Kadden RM, Litt MD. Searching for treatment outcome measures for use across trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2004;65(1):145–152. [PubMed]
48. Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB. Methods for defining and determing the clinical significance of treatment effects: Description, application and alternatives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1999;67:300–307. [PubMed]
49. Kendall PC, Marrs-Garcia A, Nath SR, Sheldrick RC. Normative comparisions for the evaluation of clinical significance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1999;67:285–299. [PubMed]
50. Atkins DC, Bedics JD, McGlinchey JB, Beauchaine TP. Assessing clinical significance: does it matter which method we use? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73(5):982–9. [PubMed]
51. Cisler RA, Kowalchulk RK, Saunders SM, Zweben A, Trinh HQ. Applying clinical significance methodology to alcoholism treatment trials: Determining recovery outcome status with individual- and population-based measures. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2005;29:1991–2000. [PubMed]
52. Anton RF, O’Malley SS, Ciraulo DA, Cisler RA, Couper D, Donovan DM, Gastfriend DR, Hosking JD, Johnson BA, LoCastro JS, Longabaugh R, Mason BJ, Mattson ME, Miller WR, Pettinati HM, Randall CL, Swift RM, Weiss RD, Williams LD, Zweben A, for the COMBINE Study Research Group Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence: The COMBINE Study. JAMA. 2006;2006:2003–2017. [PubMed]
53. Miller WR, Manuel JK. How large must a treatment effect be before it matters to practitioners? An estimation method and demonstration. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27(5):524–8. [PubMed]
54. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):206–9. [PubMed]
55. Lauer MS, Collins FS. Using science to improve the nation’s health system: NIH’s commitment to comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2010;303(21):2182–2183. [PubMed]
56. Hien DA, Wells EA, Jiang H, Suarez-Morales L, Campbell AN, Cohen LR, Miele GM, Killeen T, Brigham GS, Zhang Y, Hansen C, Hodgkins C, Hatch-Maillette M, Brown C, Kulaga A, Kristman-Valente A, Chu M, Sage R, Robinson JA, Liu D, Nunes EV. Multisite randomized trial of behavioral interventions for women with co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009;77(4):607–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Winhusen TM, Somoza EC, Brigham GS, Liu DS, Green CA, Covey LS, Croghan IT, Adler LA, Weiss RD, Leimberger JD, Lewis DF, Dorer EM. Impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment on smoking cessation intervention in ADHD smokers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Kraemer HC, Wilson GT, Fairburn CG, Agras WS. Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002;59:877–883. [PubMed]
59. Nock MK. Conceptual and design essentials for evaluating mechanisms of change. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2007;31(S3):4S–12S. [PubMed]
60. McLellan AT, Kemp J, Brooks A, Carise D. Improving public addiction treatment through performance contracting: the Delaware experiment. Health Policy. 2008;87(3):296–308. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. McHugh RK, Barlow DH. The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. A review of current efforts. Am Psychol. 2010;65(2):73–84. [PubMed]
62. Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B. Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2009;36(1):24–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Norquist G, Regier DA. The epidemiology of psychiatric disorders and the de facto mental health care system. Annual Review of Medicine. 1996;47:473–479. [PubMed]
64. Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS, Manderscheid RW, Locke BZ, Goodwin FK. The de facto US mental health and addictive disorders service system: Epidemiological Catchment Area prospective one-year prevalence rates of disorders and services. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1993;50:85–91. [PubMed]
65. McLellan AT, Carise D, Kleber HD. Can the national addiction treatment infrastructure support the public’s demand for quality care? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2003;25:117–121. [PubMed]
66. McCarty D, McConnell KJ, Schmidt LA. Priorities for policy research on treatments for alcohol and drug use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;39(2):87–95. [PubMed]
67. Babor TF, McKee BG, Kassenbaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahmed K, Bray J. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Substance Abuse. 2007;28:7–30. [PubMed]
68. Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ. Computer-assisted therapy in psychiatry: Be brave-it’s a new world. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2010;12:426–432. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Bickel WK, Christensen DR, Marsch LA. A review of computer-based interventions used in the assessment, treatment, and research of drug addiction. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46(1):4–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
70. Bickel WK, Marsch LA, Buchhalter AR, Badger GJ. Computerized behavior therapy for opioid-dependent outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;16(2):132–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
71. Institute of Medicine . Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance Use Conditions. The National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2006.
72. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, Kleber HD. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284:1689–1695. [PubMed]
73. McKay JR. Continuing care in the treatment of addictive disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2006;8(5):355–62. [PubMed]
74. McLellan AT. Congratulations on the 10-year anniversary of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trial Network--now, what’s new for the coming decade? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S1–3. [PubMed]
75. Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ. A perfect platform: combining contingency management with medications for drug abuse. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2007;33(3):343–65. PMCID: PMC2367002. [PMC free article] [PubMed]