Search

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., Competing Interests: Competing Interests None.

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) in the United States cause many preventable deaths each year. Finding effective ways to manage SUDs is vital to improving outcomes for individuals seeking treatment. This has increased interest in using e-health technologies in behavioral healthcare settings. This research is part of a larger study evaluating the efficacy of the NIATx coaching intervention for implementing RISE Iowa, an e-health patient recovery app, in SUD treatment organizations and seeks to examine clinician perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to its implementation., Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 clinicians from 9 different intervention sites involved in the study., Results: Major barriers to implementing e-health technology include inability to access the technology, lack of time for both patients and clinicians, and a perceived lack of patient motivation to make changes. Facilitators to implementation include collaboration with other staff using e-health technology and integrating technology use into typical workflows., Conclusions: Implementation of e-health technology in SUD treatment will require integrating the technology into clinical workflows and improving patient access to the technology., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Todd Molfenter is a faculty member at CHESS. In addition to his academic affiliation, Dr. Molfenter has a less than .1% ownership with CHESS Health, the organization responsible for making the A-CHESS addiction recovery app commercially available to the public. Dr. Molfenter has worked extensively with his institution to manage any conflicts of interest. An external advisory board approved all survey instruments applied, and the individuals who will conduct the data collection and interpretation for this study will have no affiliation with CHESS Health. Also, parts of the NIATx organizational change model used in part of this trial were developed by the Center for Health Enhancement System Studies (CHESS) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where Dr. Molfenter is a faculty member. Dr. Molfenter is also affiliated with the NIATx Foundation, the organization responsible for making the NIATx organizational change model available to the public. For this scenario, Dr. Molfenter also has an institutionally approved plan to manage potential conflicts of interest. The individuals who will conduct the data collection and interpretation for this study manuscript will have no affiliation with the NIATx Foundation. David Gustafson is a part-owner of CHESS Health, devoted to marketing information technologies to agencies that deliver addiction treatment. He is also on the board of directors of the not-for-profit NIATx Foundation, as well as a small consulting company doing business as David H. Gustafson and Associates. These relationships do not carry with them any restrictions on publication, and any associated intellectual property will be disclosed and processed according to his institution’s policies., (© The Author(s) 2021.)