Risky decision-making in the Context of Contingency Management for Methamphetamine Use Disorder
Master Thesis
2019
Permanent link to this Item
Authors
Journal Title
Link to Journal
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Publisher
Department
Faculty
License
Series
Abstract
Background: Risky decision-making is strongly implicated in adverse real-world risk-taking behaviour, and is associated with Substance Use Disorder, including Methamphetamine Use Disorder. Laboratory neurocognitive tasks typically utilized to assess risky decision-making have been able to distinguish participants with Substance Use Disorder from controls, although considerable heterogeneity is still evident within substance-using populations, which remains largely unexplained. Preliminary evidence has also tied risky decision-making to treatment outcomes, although no research has investigated risk-decision-making within Methamphetamine Use Disorder in the context of Contingency Management treatment. Methods: This study aimed to investigate decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task and the Balloon Analogue Risk at baseline as both a function and predictor of treatment response on an 8-week treatment of Contingency Management. Of 26 participants with Methamphetamine Use Disorder, 17 responded to Contingency Management treatment, whilst 9 were non-responders. Using various mixed-effect modelling techniques and ANCOVA, performance by nonresponders were compared to responders, as well as a group of 19 healthy, nonsubstance-using control participants. Results: Group differences between non-responders, responders and controls were exclusively obtained on the Iowa Gambling Task. A trend-level (p=.051), large effect size (g=-0.98) was observed in the effect of reward magnitude between non-responders and healthy controls. More specifically, non-responders tended to seek-out large short-term rewards in spite of long-term losses relative to controls, however, groups did not also differ in effect of short-term loss magnitude. Non-responders also appeared to demonstrate poorer learning than healthy controls, although this finding was also at trend-level (p=.081) with a medium effect size (g =-0.63). In addition, results showed that responders and non-responders were differentially influenced by the frequency of outcomes, where responders demonstrated a greater preference for frequent rewards and infrequent losses relative to non-responders. This difference was at trend-level (p=.053) and the effect was moderately sized (g =-0.74). Impulsivity did not moderate group differences in decision-making, but did positively predict a greater likelihood of relapse at least once during Contingency Management (p =.035), although this effect was small (OR=1.10). Poor overall performance on the IGT appeared to predict a greater likelihood of prolonged relapse on Contingency Management following initial relapse, although this was at trend-level (p =.071) with a small effect size (OR=1.80). Conclusion: Findings provide evidence for individual differences in risky decision-making within Methamphetamine User Disorder, suggesting that risky decision-making is unlikely to be a homogeneous characteristic of substance-using populations, as is typically treated in the literature. Risky decision-making may also act as a risk factor for poor treatment success on Contingency Management, which in turn suggests that assessing risky decision-making of individuals with Methamphetamine Use disorder prior to commencing Contingency Management treatment might assist in identifying those at high risk.
Description
Keywords
Reference:
Lake, M. 2019. Risky decision-making in the Context of Contingency Management for Methamphetamine Use Disorder.