Testing the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention for substance use as an adjunct to usual care in community-based AIDS service organizations: study protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial

Testing the incremental effectiveness of pay-for-performance to improve implementation of a motivational interviewing brief intervention for substance use disorders in HIV settings: Results of a parallel cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial

Background

Substance use disorders (SUDs) have a serious adverse impact on the physical and mental well-being of people with HIV. Previously, using a 39-site dual-randomized type 2 hybrid trial design, findings from the Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care Project supported the Implementation and Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) strategy to improve implementation and effectiveness of a motivational interviewing brief intervention (MIBI) for SUD within HIV service settings across the United States (US). Building on this trial, this parallel cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial aimed to test the incremental effectiveness of a pay-for-performance (P4P), a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy.

Methods

Twenty-six HIV service organizations, their staff participants (N=87), and their client participants (N=341) were cluster-randomized to one of two implementation conditions. The control condition included staff-focused training, feedback, and consultation (TFC) and team-focused implementation and sustainment (ISF). The experimental condition included TFC+ISF as well as P4P (TFC+ISF+P4P). P4P used financial incentives to reward MIBI implementation (US$10 per MIBI delivered) and MIBI implementation at or above a pre-defined level of quality (US$10 per demonstration). In addition to these outcomes, past 4-week changes/reductions in client participant's days of primary substance use and anxiety symptoms were examined.

Results

The addition of P4P had a large and significant effect on the number of MIBIs implemented (d=1.30, p<.05) and reduction in anxiety (d=-1.54), but there was no impact on days of substance use. P4P had large effects on MIBI quality (d=1.24) and MIBI implementation effectiveness (d=1.28), but these were not significant (p<.10).

Conclusions

P4P is a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy. Its function is to reward the implementation of a clinical innovation. Rewarding implementation is consistent with the theory of implementation effectiveness, which suggests implementation climate (i.e., the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded) is a key antecedent of implementation effectiveness (i.e., the consistency and quality of implementation). We found that P4P had a significant, positive impact on MIBI implementation in HIV service settings, but client-level outcomes were mixed. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the P4P strategy to improve implementation and sustainment of other evidence-based innovations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04687917. Registered 12/18/2020.

Organize and mobilize for implementation effectiveness to improve overdose education and naloxone distribution from syringe services programs: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The United States (US) continues to face decades-long increases in opioid overdose fatalities. As an opioid overdose reversal medication, naloxone can dramatically reduce opioid overdose mortality rates when distributed to people likely to experience or witness an opioid overdose and packaged with education on its use, known as overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND). Syringe services programs (SSPs) are ideal venues for OEND with staff who are culturally competent in providing services for people who are at risk of experiencing or observing an opioid overdose. We carried out a randomized controlled trial of SSPs to understand the effectiveness of the organize and mobilize for implementation effectiveness (OMIE) approach at improving OEND implementation effectiveness within SSPs.

METHODS

Using simple randomization, 105 SSPs were enrolled into the trial and assigned to one of two study arms - (1) dissemination of OEND best practice recommendations (Control SSPs) or the OMIE approach along with dissemination of the OEND best practice recommendations (i.e., OMIE SSPs). OMIE SSPs could participate in 60-min OMIE sessions once a month for up to 12 months. At 12-month post-baseline, 102 of 105 SSPs (97%) responded to the follow-up survey.

RESULTS

The median number of sessions completed by OMIE SSPs was 10. Comparing OMIE SSPs to control SSPs, we observed significant increases in the number of participants receiving naloxone (incidence rate ratio: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.42, 3.25; p < 0.01) and the rate of naloxone doses distributed per SSP participant (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.18, 3.30; p = 0.01). We observed no statistically significant difference in the number of adopted best practices between conditions (difference in means 0.2, 95% CI: - 0.7, 1.0; p = 0.68). We also observed a threshold effect where SSPs receiving a higher OMIE dose had greater effect sizes with regard to the number of people given naloxone and the number of naloxone doses distributed.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the multifaceted OMIE approach was effective at increasing naloxone distribution from SSPs, despite substantial external shocks during the trial. These findings have major implications for addressing the overdose crisis, which has continued unabated for decades.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03924505 . Registered 19 April 2019.

Testing the incremental effectiveness of pay-for-performance to improve implementation of a motivational interviewing brief intervention for substance use disorders in HIV settings: Results of a cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial

Background

Substance use disorders (SUDs) have a serious adverse impact on people living with HIV. Previously, using a 39-site dual-randomized type 2 hybrid trial design, findings from the Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care Project supported the Implementation and Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) strategy to improve implementation and effectiveness of a motivational interviewing brief intervention (MIBI) for SUD within HIV service settings across the United States (US). Building on this trial, this cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial aimed to test the incremental effectiveness of a pay-for-performance (P4P), a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy.

Methods

Twenty-six HIV service organizations, their staff participants (N=87), and their client participants (N=341) were cluster-randomized to one of two implementation conditions. The control condition included staff-focused training, feedback, and consultation (TFC) and team-focused implementation and sustainment (ISF). The experimental condition included TFC+ISF as well as P4P (TFC+ISF+P4P). P4P used financial incentives to reward MIBI implementation (US$10 per MIBI delivered) and MIBI implementation at or above a pre-defined level of quality (US$10 per demonstration). In addition to these outcomes, past 4-week changes/reductions in client participant's days of primary substance use and anxiety symptoms were examined.

Results

The addition of P4P had a large and significant effect on the number of MIBIs implemented (d=1.30, p<.05) and reduction in anxiety (d=-1.54), but there was no impact on days of substance use. P4P had large effects on MIBI quality (d=1.24) and MIBI implementation effectiveness (d=1.28), but these were not significant (p<.10).

Conclusions

P4P is a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy Its function is to reward the implementation of a clinical innovation. Rewarding implementation is consistent with the theory of implementation effectiveness, which suggests implementation climate (i.e., the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded) is a key antecedent of implementation effectiveness (i.e., the consistency and quality of implementation). We found that P4P had a significant, positive impact on MIBI implementation in HIV service settings, but client-level outcomes were mixed. Future research should examine the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, as well as to examine the effectiveness of P4P to improve the implementation of other evidence-based innovations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04687917. Registered 12/18/2020.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

From innovative applications of the effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial design to the dissemination, implementation, effectiveness, sustainment, economics, and level-of-scaling hybrid trial design

To address the enduring gap between research and practice, there is a need to improve the speed and efficiency of research across the translational research spectrum. In 2012, the effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial design (HTD) was codified as a design with the potential to improve the speed and efficiency of translation, especially as part of T2 (clinical research) translational research. Building on this and other recent efforts to stimulate greater use of this novel HTD, the current article highlights an innovative application of each effectiveness-implementation HTD type. The completed application of the Type 1 effectiveness-implementation HTD tested the effectiveness of a clinical intervention for reducing HIV viral load and retaining people with HIV in care, as well as conducted a longitudinal mixed-methods examination to test for significant changes over time in three key measures of context, and economic evaluation of the clinical intervention. The completed application of the Type 2 effectiveness-implementation HTD used a dual-randomized design to simultaneously test the effectiveness of a clinical intervention for addressing substance use disorder among people with HIV and effectiveness of a blended strategy called the Implementation and Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) Strategy. This Type 2 hybrid trial was also innovative due to its focus on both sustainment and economic outcomes. The innovative Type 3 application (funded in 2008 and completed in 2012) tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using pay-for-performance to improve both implementation outcomes and client outcomes. This article also codifies a HTD called the Dissemination, Implementation, effectiveness, Sustainment, Economics, and Level-of-scaling (DIeSEL) HTD.

The Setting-Intervention Fit of Nine Evidence-Based Interventions for Substance Use Disorders Within HIV Service Organizations Across the United States: Results of a National Stakeholder-Engaged Real-Time Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Given substance use disorders (SUDs) among people with HIV are highly prevalent, integrating SUD services within HIV service settings is needed to help end the HIV epidemic. In this study, we assessed the setting-intervention fit (SIF) of 9 evidence-based SUD interventions: acamprosate, disulfiram, oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, oral buprenorphine, injectable buprenorphine, contingency management, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

SETTING

Clinical and nonclinical HIV service organizations (HSOs) in the United States.

METHODS

In May 2020, a stakeholder-engaged real-time Delphi was completed with 202 HSOs. HSO respondents rated the extent to which each SUD intervention was fundable, implementable, retainable, sustainable, scalable, and timely for their HSO, and these 6 items were summed into an SIF score (possible range of 0-18).

RESULTS

Motivational interviewing had the highest average SIF score (11.42), with SIF scores above the midpoint (9.5) for clinical (11.51) and nonclinical HSOs (11.36). For nonclinical HSOs, none of the other interventions were above the midpoint. For clinical HSOs, the average SIF scores were above the midpoint for CBT (10.97) and oral buprenorphine (9.51). Multivariate regression analyses, which controlled for characteristics of the HSO respondent, revealed geographic region of the United States and whether the HSO currently offered any substance use services as 2 of the best predictors of SIF scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the need to improve the SIF for the other evidence-based SUD interventions, motivational interviewing, CBT, and oral buprenorphine are currently the evidence-based SUD interventions with greatest perceived fit for integration within HSOs in the United States.

A peek behind the curtain: exploring coaching styles within the implementation and sustainment facilitation (ISF) strategy in the substance abuse treatment to HIV care study

BACKGROUND

The Grasha-Riechmann teaching styles, which includes three didactic and two prescriptive styles, have been shown to help enhance learning within educational settings. Although an adaption of the Grasha-Riechmann style classification has enabled coaching styles to be identified for use as part of quality improvement (QI) initiatives, research has not examined the styles actually utilized by coaches within a QI initiative or how the styles change overtime when the coach is guiding an organization through change implementation. Interactions between coaches and HIV service organization (HSO) staff participating in a large implementation research experiment called the Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV care (SAT2HIV) Project were evaluated to begin building an evidence base to address this gap in implementation research.

METHODS

Implementation & Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) Strategy meetings (n = 137) between coaches and HSO staff were recorded and professionally transcribed. Thematic coding classifications were developed from the Grasha-Riechmann framework and applied to a purposively selected sample of transcripts (n = 66). Four coders independently coded transcripts using NVivo to facilitate text identification, organization, and retrieval for analysis. Coaching style use and changes across the three ISF phases were explored.

RESULTS

Facilitator and formal authority were the two coaching styles predominately used. Facilitator sub-themes shifted from asking questions and providing support to supporting independent action over time. Coaches' use of formal authority sub-styles shifted notably across time from setting expectations or ensuring preparation to offering affirmation or feedback about changes that the HSO's were implementing. The use of the delegator or personal model coaching styles occurred infrequently.

CONCLUSIONS

The current research extends implementation research's understanding of coaching. More specifically, findings indicate it is feasible to use the Grasha-Riechmann framework to qualitatively identify coaching styles utilized in a facilitation-based implementation strategy. More importantly, results provide insights into how different coaching styles were utilized to implement an evidence-based practice. Further research is needed to examine how coaching styles differ by organization, impact implementation fidelity, and influence both implementation outcomes and client outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02495402 . Registered on July 6, 2015.

Reprint of: An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs

The traditional research pipeline that encourages a staged approach to moving an intervention from efficacy trials to the real world can take a long time. To address this issue, hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs were codified to promote examination of both effectiveness and implementation outcomes within a study. There are three types of hybrid designs and they vary based on their primary focus and the amount of emphasis on effectiveness versus implementation outcomes. A type 1 hybrid focuses primarily on the effectiveness outcomes of an intervention while exploring the "implementability" of the intervention. A type 2 hybrid has a dual focus on effectiveness and implementation outcomes; these designs allow for the simultaneous testing or piloting of implementation strategies during an effectiveness trial. A type 3 hybrid focuses primarily on implementation outcomes while also collecting effectiveness outcomes as they relate to uptake or fidelity of the intervention. This paper provides an introduction to these designs and describes each of the three types, design considerations, and examples for each.

An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs

The traditional research pipeline that encourages a staged approach to moving an intervention from efficacy trials to the real world can take a long time. To address this issue, hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs were codified to promote examination of both effectiveness and implementation outcomes within a study. There are three types of hybrid designs and they vary based on their primary focus and the amount of emphasis on effectiveness versus implementation outcomes. A type 1 hybrid focuses primarily on the effectiveness outcomes of an intervention while exploring the "implementability" of the intervention. A type 2 hybrid has a dual focus on effectiveness and implementation outcomes; these designs allow for the simultaneous testing or piloting of implementation strategies during an effectiveness trial. A type 3 hybrid focuses primarily on implementation outcomes while also collecting effectiveness outcomes as they relate to uptake or fidelity of the intervention. This paper provides an introduction to these designs and describes each of the three types, design considerations, and examples for each.

Correction to: Testing the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention for substance use as an adjunct to usual care in community-based AIDS service organizations: study protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial

Upon publication of the original article.

Testing the implementation and sustainment facilitation (ISF) strategy as an effective adjunct to the Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) strategy: study protocol for a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Improving the extent to which evidence-based practices (EBPs)-treatments that have been empirically shown to be efficacious or effective-are integrated within routine practice is a well-documented challenge across numerous areas of health. In 2014, the National Institute on Drug Abuse funded a type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial titled the substance abuse treatment to HIV Care (SAT2HIV) Project. Aim 1 of the SAT2HIV Project tests the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention (MIBI) for substance use as an adjunct to usual care within AIDS service organizations (ASOs) as part of its MIBI Experiment. Aim 2 of the SAT2HIV Project tests the effectiveness of implementation and sustainment facilitation (ISF) as an adjunct to the Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) model for training staff in motivational interviewing as part of its ISF Experiment. The current paper describes the study protocol for the ISF Experiment.

METHODS

Using a cluster randomized design, case management and leadership staff from 39 ASOs across the United States were randomized to receive either the ATTC strategy (control condition) or the ATTC + ISF strategy (experimental condition). The ATTC strategy is staff-focused and includes 10 discrete strategies (e.g., provide centralized technical assistance, conduct educational meetings, provide ongoing consultation). The ISF strategy is organization-focused and includes seven discrete strategies (e.g., use an implementation advisor, organize implementation team meetings, conduct cyclical small tests of change). Building upon the exploration-preparation-implementation-sustainment (EPIS) framework, the effectiveness of the ISF strategy is examined via three staff-level measures: (1) time-to-proficiency (i.e., preparation phase outcome), (2) implementation effectiveness (i.e., implementation phase outcome), and (3) level of sustainment (i.e., sustainment phase outcome).

DISCUSSION

Although not without limitations, the ISF experiment has several strengths: a highly rigorous design (randomized, hypothesis-driven), high-need setting (ASOs), large sample size (39 ASOs), large geographic representation (23 states and the District of Columbia), and testing along multiple phases of the EPIS continuum (preparation, implementation, and sustainment). Thus, study findings will significantly improve generalizable knowledge regarding the best preparation, implementation, and sustainment strategies for advancing EBPs along the EPIS continuum. Moreover, increasing ASO's capacity to address substance use may improve the HIV Care Continuum. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03120598.