RethinkTHC

Paying for Clean Tests Worked During Treatment. Therapy Helped It Last.

In a randomized trial, abstinence-based voucher incentives produced longer continuous cannabis abstinence during treatment, and adding cognitive-behavioral therapy helped sustain abstinence after incentives ended.

Budney, Alan J. et al.·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology·2006·Moderate EvidenceRandomized Controlled Trial·2 min read
Addiction (1380)Withdrawal (166)Quitting (221)Mental Health (840)
RTHC-00218Randomized Controlled TrialModerate Evidence2006RETHINKTHC RESEARCH DATABASErethinkthc.com/research

Quick Facts

Study Type
Randomized Controlled Trial
Evidence
Moderate Evidence
Sample
N=90
Participants
N=90 cannabis-dependent adults, Country not specified

What This Study Found

Three groups were compared for 14 weeks: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) alone, abstinence-based voucher incentives alone, and the combination. Vouchers were effective at producing extended runs of continuous abstinence during the treatment window. CBT by itself did not improve these during-treatment abstinence runs.

Where CBT mattered was after treatment stopped. Participants who received CBT plus vouchers maintained abstinence better across the 12-month follow-up than those who received vouchers without CBT, according to the authors. The pattern suggests a division of labor: incentives helped people achieve abstinence during treatment, while CBT supported keeping it going when the external rewards ended.

Key Numbers

  • Sample: 90 adults with cannabis dependence, randomized to CBT, vouchers, or both
  • Treatment length: 14 weeks of active intervention
  • Follow-up: 12 months after treatment ended
  • During treatment: vouchers produced longer runs of continuous abstinence than CBT alone

How They Did This

Randomized controlled trial of 90 treatment-seeking adults diagnosed with cannabis dependence. Participants were assigned to one of three arms for 14 weeks: CBT, abstinence-contingent voucher incentives, or both combined. Outcomes were assessed for 12 months after treatment. The abstract does not report the country, verification method for abstinence, voucher values, therapist training, or attrition rates.

Why This Research Matters

Cannabis dependence has far fewer tested interventions than other substance use disorders. This trial put two widely used approaches head to head and in combination, clarifying that contingency management can drive short-term abstinence during active treatment, while CBT may help preserve gains after incentives stop. Programs that separate the short-term and maintenance phases can plan with better expectations about what each component delivers.

The Bigger Picture

Across substance use disorders, contingency management tends to excel at producing behavior change while the contingencies are in place. Skills-based therapies like CBT are designed to give people tools to navigate high-risk situations after treatment. This study aligns with that broader pattern for cannabis dependence. Implementation is the sticking point. Voucher programs can be resource intensive and have faced policy and reimbursement hurdles in many systems, while CBT requires trained clinicians and sustained engagement. The evidence here speaks to efficacy under trial conditions, not whether real-world programs can deliver the same effects at scale.

What This Study Doesn't Tell Us

Only 90 participants and a single trial. The abstract does not report exact abstinence rates, effect sizes, or how abstinence was verified. Voucher amounts, schedule, and CBT content are not detailed, making replication and real-world translation difficult. All participants were treatment-seeking adults, which may not generalize to people who are not seeking treatment. Published in 2006, before major shifts in cannabis potency, product types, and policy environments.

Questions This Raises

  • ?How large were the abstinence gains numerically during treatment and at each follow-up point?
  • ?What voucher values and schedules are necessary to achieve similar effects, and how cost-effective are they?
  • ?Which CBT components most strongly support posttreatment maintenance for cannabis dependence?
  • ?Did outcomes vary by participant characteristics such as age, use severity, or co-occurring conditions?
  • ?How well do these effects hold in community clinics where staffing, funding, and engagement differ from research settings?

Trust & Context

Key Stat:
12 months length of follow-up during which CBT helped maintain abstinence that began with vouchers
Evidence Grade:
Rated moderate: randomized controlled design with clear phase-specific effects, but a modest sample, limited reporting of effect sizes and procedures, and results from a single trial site.
Study Age:
Published in 2006, before widespread legalization and shifts in cannabis potency and product formats. Implementation contexts and policy constraints around contingency management have also evolved since then.
Original Title:
Clinical trial of abstinence-based vouchers and cognitive-behavioral therapy for cannabis dependence
Published In:
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(2), 307-316 (2006) — Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology is a reputable journal in the field of psychology, known for publishing peer-reviewed research.
Database ID:
RTHC-00218

Evidence Hierarchy

Meta-Analysis / Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled TrialGold standard for testing treatments
This study
Cohort / Case-Control
Cross-Sectional / Observational
Case Report / Animal Study

Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or placebo groups to test cause and effect.

What do these levels mean? →

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an abstinence-based voucher program?

A contingency management approach where participants earn vouchers or prizes contingent on verified abstinence. The rewards escalate with continued abstinence to reinforce consecutive negative tests.

Did CBT help during treatment?

Not for producing longer continuous abstinence during the 14-week treatment. The abstract reports that vouchers drove those gains, and CBT did not add to that immediate effect.

Where did CBT make a difference?

After treatment ended. CBT enhanced maintenance of abstinence during the 12-month follow-up among those who had received vouchers.

How were abstinence and outcomes measured?

The abstract does not specify verification methods or exact outcome metrics. Many contingency management trials use biological verification, but that is not stated here.

Was there a no-treatment control group?

No. All participants received an active intervention: CBT, vouchers, or both.

Read More on RethinkTHC

Cite This Study

RTHC-00218·https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-00218

APA

Budney, Alan J.; Moore, Brent A.; Rocha, Higgins L.; Higgins, Stephen T.. (2006). Clinical trial of abstinence-based vouchers and cognitive-behavioral therapy for cannabis dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(2), 307-316.

MLA

Budney, Alan J., et al. "Clinical trial of abstinence-based vouchers and cognitive-behavioral therapy for cannabis dependence." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2006.

RethinkTHC

RethinkTHC Research Database. "Clinical trial of abstinence-based vouchers and cognitive-be..." RTHC-00218. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/budney-2006-treatment-trial

Access the Original Study

View on PubMed

Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.

← Back to Research Database