Implementation support for contingency management: preferences of opioid treatment program leaders and staff

Adjunctive interventions: change methods directed at recipients that support uptake and use of health innovations

BACKGROUND

Implementation science groups change methods into two categories: (1) clinical, behavioral, or biomedical intervention targeting recipient's health outcomes and (2) implementation strategies targeting the delivery system. Differentiating interventions from strategies based on their intended functions is critical to accurately attributing their effects to health or implementation outcomes. However, in coordinating 200+ HIV implementation research projects and conducting systematic reviews, we identified change methods that had characteristics of both interventions and strategies that were inconsistently categorized. To alleviate confusion and improve change method specification, we propose that implementation science should adopt an extant but rarely used term-adjunctive interventions-to classify change methods that are distinct from the common intervention/strategy taxonomy.

MAIN TEXT

Adjunctive interventions as change methods that target recipients (e.g., patients, participants) of a health intervention but are designed to increase recipients' motivation, self-efficacy, or capacity for initiating, adhering to, complying with, or engaging with the health intervention over time. In two of our published reviews on implementation of HIV interventions, 25 out of 45 coded change methods fell into this gray area between strategy and intervention. We also noted instances in which the same change method was labelled as the intervention ("the thing"), as an adjunctive intervention, or an implementation strategy in different studies-further muddying the waters. Adjunctive interventions are distinguished from other change methods by their intended targets, desired outcomes, and theory of action and causal processes. Whereas health interventions target recipients and have a direct, causal effect on the health outcome, adjunctive interventions enhance recipients' attitudes and behaviors to engage with the intervention and have an indirect causal link to the health outcome via increasing the probability of recipients' utilization and adherence to the intervention. Adjunctive interventions are incapable of directly producing the health outcome and will themselves require implementation strategies to effectively impact sustained uptake, utilization, and adherence. Case examples, logic modeling, and considerations (e.g., relationship to consumer engagement strategies) for adjunctive intervention research are provided.

CONCLUSION

Conceptualizing adjunctive interventions as a separate type of change method will advance implementation research by improving tests of effectiveness, and the specification of mechanisms and outcomes.

Lessons learned from statewide contingency management rollouts addressing stimulant use in the Northwestern United States

Increases in stimulant drug use (such as methamphetamine) and related deaths creates an imperative for community settings to adopt evidence-based practices to help people who use stimulants. Contingency management (CM) is a behavioral intervention with decades of research demonstrating efficacy for the treatment of stimulant use disorder, but real-world adoption has been slow, due to well-known implementation barriers, including difficulty funding reinforcers, and stigma. This paper describes the training and technical assistance (TTA) efforts and lessons learned for two state-wide stimulant-focused CM implementation projects in the Northwestern United States (Montana and Washington). A total of 154 providers from 35 community-based service sites received didactic training in CM beginning in 2021. Seventeen of these sites, ten of eleven in Montana (90.9%) and seven of 24 in Washington (29.2%), went on to implement contingency management programs adherent to their state's established CM protocol and received ongoing TTA in the form of implementation coaching calls. These findings illustrate that site-specific barriers such as logistical fit precluded implementation in more than 50% of the trained sites; however, strategies for site-specific tailoring within the required protocol aided implementation, resulting in successful CM program launch in a diverse cross-section of service sites across the states. The lessons learned add to the body of literature describing CM implementation barriers and solutions.

Stimulant use among patients in opioid treatment settings: Provider perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) has been a pillar of opioid addiction treatment. Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) have been faced with an escalating threat of stimulant use and related overdose deaths among patients. We know little about how providers currently address stimulant use while maintaining treatment for opioid use disorder.

METHODS

We conducted 5 focus groups with 36 providers (n = 11 prescribers; 25 behavioral health staff), and collected an additional 46 surveys (n = 7 prescribers; 12 administrators; 27 behavioral health staff). Questions focused on perceptions of patient stimulant use and interventions. We applied inductive analysis to identify themes relevant to identification of stimulant use, use trends, intervention approaches, and perceived needs to improve care.

RESULTS

Providers indicated a trend of rising stimulant use among patients, especially those experiencing homelessness or comorbid health conditions. They reported a range of approaches to patient screening and intervention, including medication and harm reduction, improving treatment engagement, increasing level of care, and providing incentives. Providers expressed less agreement as to which of these interventions were effective, and though providers saw stimulant use as a common and severe problem, they reported little problem recognition and interest in treatment from their patients. A particular concern of providers was the prevalence and danger of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl. They sought more research and resources to identify effective interventions and medications to address these issues. Also notable was an interest in contingency management (CM) and use of reinforcements/rewards to encourage stimulant use reduction.

CONCLUSION

Providers face challenges in treating patients who use both opioids and stimulants. Although methadone is available to treat opioid use, no such "silver bullet" exists for stimulant use disorder. The rise in stimulant and synthetic opioid (e.g., fentanyl) combination products is presenting an extraordinary challenge for providers whose patients are at unprecedented risk for overdose. Providing OTPs with more resources to address polysubstance use is critical. Existing research indicates strong support for CM in OTPs, but providers reported regulatory and financial barriers to implementation. Further research should develop effective interventions that are accessible to providers in OTPs.

Rewarding recovery: the time is now for contingency management for opioid use disorder

Contingency management (i.e. rewarding people, often with money, for achieving their recovery goals) is backed by decades of empirical support yet remains highly underutilized. Rewards are rarely used in real-world clinical practice due to a number of concerns, including most notably, the apparent lack of innovation, as well as moral, philosophical, ethical, and economic concerns, and even federal rules meant to prevent illegal inducements in health care. Still, other opponents argue that some patients will try to "game" the system by simply doing whatever it takes to earn monetary rewards. This paper provides a succinct, up-to-date overview of the current evidence base for contingency management for opioid use disorder. Common barriers and solutions to implementation, as well as implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed. Although important, greater uptake of contingency management interventions is about more than legislation and regulations; it's about recognizing stigma, shaping attitudes, and increasing awareness. Provider involvement in advocacy efforts at all levels and collaboration involving academic-industry partnerships is necessary to advance the burgeoning digital health care space and improve outcomes for people with opioid use disorder. Key MessagesContingency management is highly effective but highly underutilized.Low uptake is largely attributed to a lack of innovation and moral, ethical, and economic concerns, among other barriers.Technology-enabled solutions and academic-industry partnerships are critical to advance opioid use disorder care.

Sustainment of Contingency Management within Opioid Treatment Programs: COVID-Related Barriers and Innovative Workflow Adaptations

Introduction

Contingency Management (CM) is one of the most effective interventions for persons with opioid use disorder, but one of the least available interventions in community settings, including opioid treatment programs. Project MIMIC is a NIDA-funded cluster randomized trial that is measuring CM implementation and sustainment across 30 opioid treatment programs in the New England region of the United States. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in the midst of Project MIMIC's first cohort of eight opioid treatment programs, presenting a natural opportunity to document and analyze novel challenges to CM sustainment. Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data collection, we aimed to identify both COVID-related barriers to CM sustainment and innovative workflow strategies to mitigate these barriers.

Methods

Quantitative analysis was conducted using data collected from a study-specific CM tracker tool on various CM implementation metrics over three distinct, successive time intervals: prior to COVID-19 social distancing orders with active support; during COVID-19 social distancing orders with active support; and during COVID-19 social distancing orders after removal of support. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a representative from each of the eight opioid treatment programs. Using a reflexive team approach, transcripts were coded by independent raters to identify both COVID-related barriers to sustainment and innovative workflow adaptations.

Results

Quantitative data revealed a substantial decrease in the number of CM encounters following social distancing orders from 31.8 encounters weekly across eight programs to 6.9 encounters weekly across five programs. A further decline to 1.8 weekly encounters across three programs was observed after implementation support was removed. Four COVID-related barriers were identified via thematic analysis: fear of contagion; difficulty engaging patients remotely; challenges re-defining the CM attendance target due to changing regulations; and staff shortages. Potential adjustments discussed to help address one or more of these barriers included an electronic prize generator; use of technology to promote engagement; brief individual remote check-ins; and expansion of training to non-counseling staff.

Conclusion

Although CM implementation challenges emerged during the pandemic, associated workflow adaptations also emerged. The feedback solicited in this study will inform multi-level strategies to aid with CM sustainment post-pandemic.

Project MIMIC (Maximizing Implementation of Motivational Incentives in Clinics): A cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid-related overdoses and harms have been declared a public health emergency in the United States, highlighting an urgent need to implement evidence-based treatments. Contingency management (CM) is one of the most effective behavioral interventions when delivered in combination with medication for opioid use disorder, but its implementation in opioid treatment programs is woefully limited. Project MIMIC (Maximizing Implementation of Motivational Incentives in Clinics) was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to identify effective strategies for helping opioid treatment programs improve CM implementation as an adjunct to medication. Specific aims will test the impact of two different strategies on implementation outcomes (primary aim) and patient outcomes (secondary aims), as well as test putative mediators of implementation effectiveness (exploratory aim).

METHODS

A 3-cohort, cluster-randomized, type 3 hybrid design is used with the opioid treatment programs as the unit of randomization. Thirty programs are randomized to one of two conditions. The control condition is the Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Network implementation strategy, which consists of three core approaches: didactic training, performance feedback, and on-going consultation. The experimental condition is an enhanced ATTC strategy, with the same core ATTC elements plus two additional theory-driven elements. The two additional elements are Pay-for-Performance, which aims to increase implementing staff's extrinsic motivations, and Implementation & Sustainment Facilitation, which targets staff's intrinsic motivations. Data will be collected using a novel, CM Tracker tool to document CM session delivery, session audio recordings, provider surveys, and patient surveys. Implementation outcomes include CM Exposure (number of CM sessions delivered per patient), CM Skill (ratings of CM fidelity), and CM Sustainment (number of patients receiving CM after removal of support). Patient outcomes include self-reported opioid abstinence and opioid-related problems (both assessed at 3- and 6-months post-baseline).

DISCUSSION

There is urgent public health need to improve the implementation of CM as an adjunct to medication for opioid use disorder. Consistent with its hybrid type 3 design, Project MIMIC is advancing implementation science by comparing impacts of these two multifaceted strategies on both implementation and patient outcomes, and by examining the extent to which the impacts of those strategies can be explained by putative mediators.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03931174). Registered April 30, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03931174?term=project+mimic&draw=2&rank=1.