The economic costs of quarterly monitoring and recovery management checkups for adults with chronic substance use disorders

A randomized controlled trial of recovery management checkups for primary care patients: Twelve-month results

BACKGROUND

Primary care settings like federally qualified health centers (FQHC) are optimal locations to identify individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) and link them to SUD treatment, yet successful linkage has proven difficult. Recovery management checkups for primary care (RMC-PC) is a promising method for increasing linkage to care, engagement in treatment, and reducing substance use.

METHODS

Participants (n = 266) who received screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) at four FQHC sites and needed SUD treatment were randomized to receive SBIRT only or SBIRT+RMC-PC. All participants received SBIRT prior to randomization as part of usual care while those in the experimental group also received quarterly checkups. All participants completed research interviews at enrollment and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-enrollment. The primary outcome was whether participants received any days of SUD treatment. Key secondary outcomes were days of SUD treatment (total and by SUD level of care), days of alcohol or drug abstinence, and a reduction in days of specific substance use, all based on self-report.

RESULTS

Relative to participants receiving SBIRT only, participants assigned to SBIRT+RMC-PC were significantly more likely to have received any SUD treatment over 12 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.85) and more days of SUD treatment over 12 months (Cohen's effect size d = +0.41). The SBIRT+RMC-PC group also reported significantly more days of abstinence over 12 months (d = +0.30), fewer days of alcohol use (d = -0.20) and cannabis use (d = -0.20), and lower combined substance use frequency (d = -0.25). Days of treatment were found to positively mediate the direct effect of SBIRT+RMC-PC on days of abstinence.

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence of the effectiveness of the "referral to treatment" component of SBIRT when combined with RMC for patients in primary care settings, including those with drug use problems. Moreover, results demonstrate the value of repeated checkups on longer-term treatment and substance use outcomes.

Is the relapse concept in studies of substance use disorders a 'one size fits all' concept? A systematic review of relapse operationalisations

ISSUES

Relapse is a theoretical construct and empirical object of inquiry. It is unclear how relapse is operationalised with regard to the various phases in substance use disorders (SUD). The aim was to investigate relapse operationalisations in SUDs studies after short- and long-term abstinence and remission, recovery and slip/lapse.

APPROACH

Systematic review using the following databases: Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL and DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Search returned 3426 articles, with 276 meeting the following inclusion criteria: empirical study published in English in a peer-reviewed journal; samples meet diagnostic criteria for dependence syndrome or moderate-severe drug use disorder or alcohol use disorder; reports relapse, abstinence, recovery, remission, slip or lapse. Review protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020154062).

KEY FINDINGS

Thirty-two percent of the studies had no definition of 'relapse'. Most relapse operationalisations were defined according to measure (26%), time (17%), use (26%) and amount and frequency (27%). Of the 16 studies with a follow-up duration of up to 2 years, one (6%) contained a definition of 'long-term abstinence'. Of the 64 studies with a follow-up duration of more than 2 years, four (6%) contained a definition of 'long-term abstinence'. Of those, one (2%) mentioned 'early relapse' and one (2%) mentioned 'late relapse'.

IMPLICATIONS

Future research is needed to explore the possible difference between early and late relapse. Moreover, working to increase consensus on relapse operationalisations in SUD research is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified no consensus on relapse operationalisations nor agreement on the differentiation between early and late relapse. The clinical utility of current relapse operationalisations seems low and may compromise knowledge accumulation about relapse and implementation of research into treatment.

Factors Related to Addiction Treatment Motivations; Validity and Reliability of an Instrument

BACKGROUND

Understanding the motives and reasons for drug treatment is very important. This study aimed to develop a psychometric evaluation to determine the reasons for addiction treatment among outpatients referred to addiction treatment clinics.

METHODS

This cross-sectional validation study included five phases (i) Item generation (ii) Making an initial questionnaire (iii) Content validity (iv) Reliability analysis and (v) Structure validity. Addiction treatment motivations were identified by reviewing literatures and interviews with 21 stakeholders. A 30-item questionnaire was used for data collection and a random sample of 300 participants completed the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using content validity (CVR &CVI), internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha coefficient) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by SPSS version 16 software.

RESULTS

With exploratory factor analysis, 22 items that were remaining jointly explained 60.6% of the variance observed. Inconsistency assessment, Cronbach's coefficient (α) of items was 0.9. Items with CVIs and CVRs greater than 0.84, remained and factor loading cut off ≥ 0.5 as valid items. They were loaded into four factor solution for the questionnaire, namely: family factors, threats, friend's factors and self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggestes a reliable and valid instrument with four factors related to motives of addiction treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Recovery Management Checkups (RMC) for adults with chronic substance use disorders: evidence from a 4-year randomized trial

AIMS

This study performs the first cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of Recovery Management Checkups (RMC) for adults with chronic substance use disorders.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized clinical trial of RMC. Participants were assigned randomly to a control condition of outcome monitoring (OM-only) or the experimental condition OM-plus-RMC, with quarterly follow-up for 4 years.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from the largest central intake unit for substance abuse treatment in Chicago, Illinois, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 446 participants who were 38 years old on average, 54% male, and predominantly African American (85%).

MEASUREMENTS

Data on the quarterly cost per participant come from a previous study of OM and RMC intervention costs. Effectiveness is measured as the number of days of abstinence and number of substance use-related problems.

FINDINGS

Over the 4-year trial, OM-plus-RMC cost on average $2184 more than OM-only (P < 0.01). Participants in OM-plus-RMC averaged 1026 days abstinent and had 89 substance use-related problems. OM-only averaged 932 days abstinent and reported 126 substance use-related problems. Mean differences for both effectiveness measures were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for OM-plus-RMC was $23.38 per day abstinent and $59.51 per reduced substance-related problem. When additional costs to society were factored into the analysis, OM-plus-RMC was less costly and more effective than OM-only.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery Management Checkups are a cost-effective and potentially cost-saving strategy for promoting abstinence and reducing substance use-related problems among chronic substance users.

Opportunity costs and financial incentives for Hispanic youth participating in a family-based HIV and substance use preventive intervention

This paper presents results from a pilot study of the synergies between the opportunity costs incurred by research participants, participant compensation, and program attendance in a family-based substance use and HIV preventive intervention for Hispanic adolescents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. To estimate parent/caretaker cost per session and cost for the duration of the intervention, we administered the Caretaker Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program to a random sample of 34 families who participated in a recent clinical trial of Familias Unidas. The total opportunity cost per parent/caretaker was under $40 per group session, under $30 per family session, and just over $570 for the duration of the intervention. Participants were compensated between $40 and $50 per session and attended more than 79% of family and group sessions. Parents and caretakers incurred a cost of approximately $30-40 per intervention session for which they were adequately compensated. Attendance was very good overall for this group (>79%) and significantly higher than attendance in a comparable uncompensated study group from another recent Familias Unidas trial that targeted similar youth. Findings suggest that incentives should be considered important for future implementations of Familias Unidas and similar family-based interventions that target minority and low-SES populations.

Promoting recovery in an evolving policy context: what do we know and what do we need to know about recovery support services?

As both a concept and a movement, "recovery" is increasingly guiding substance use disorder (SUD) services and policy. One sign of this change is the emergence of recovery support services that attempt to help addicted individuals using a comprehensive continuing care model. This paper reviews the policy environment surrounding recovery support services, the needs to which they should respond, and the status of current recovery support models. We conclude that recovery support services (RSS) should be further assessed for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, that greater efforts must be made to develop the RSS delivery workforce, and that RSS should capitalize on ongoing efforts to create a comprehensive, integrated and patient-centered health care system. As the SUD treatment system undergoes its most important transformation in at least 40years, recovery research and the lived experience of recovery from addiction should be central to reform.