This preprint is under consideration at Implementation Science Communications. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Implementation Support for Contingency Management: Preferences of Opioid Treatment Program Leaders and Staff
Kelli Scott
Center for Alcohol and Addictions Studies, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI 02903
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4511-8825
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Contingency management (CM), a behavioral intervention that provides incentives for achieving treatment goals, has strong evidence for its effectiveness when combined with medication to treat opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, many front-line treatment providers do not utilize CM, likely due to contextual barriers that limit effective training and ongoing support for evidence-based practices. User-informed approaches offer a unique opportunity to adapt implementation strategies to support CM implementation. Methods: Leaders and treatment providers working in community-based opioid treatment programs (OTPs; N = 43) completed qualitative interviews inquiring about their preferences for implementation support (didactic training, performance feedback, and ongoing facilitation). Interviews were coded using a reflexive team approach to identify common a priori and emergent themes. Results: Leaders and providers expressed a preference for brief training that included case examples and research data, along with experiential learning strategies. They reported a desire for performance feedback from internal supervisors, patients, and clinical experts. Providers and leaders had mixed feelings about audio recording sessions but were open to the use of rating sheets to evaluate CM performance. Finally, participants desired both on-call and regularly scheduled ongoing facilitation to support their continued use of CM. Conclusions: This study provides an exemplar of a user-informed approach to adapt implementation support strategies for CM scale-up in community OTPs. Study findings highlight the need for user-informed approaches to training, performance feedback, and facilitation to support sustained CM use in this setting.
Keywords
contingency management, implementation support, opioid use disorder
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 28 Sep, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 25 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 23 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 14 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 25 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Sep, 2020
First submitted
On 18 Sep, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Scientific Communication
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Implementation Science Communications. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Implementation Support for Contingency Management: Preferences of Opioid Treatment Program Leaders and Staff
Kelli Scott
Center for Alcohol and Addictions Studies, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI 02903
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4511-8825
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 28 Sep, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 25 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 23 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 14 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 25 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Sep, 2020
First submitted
On 18 Sep, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Scientific Communication
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Contingency management (CM), a behavioral intervention that provides incentives for achieving treatment goals, has strong evidence for its effectiveness when combined with medication to treat opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, many front-line treatment providers do not utilize CM, likely due to contextual barriers that limit effective training and ongoing support for evidence-based practices. User-informed approaches offer a unique opportunity to adapt implementation strategies to support CM implementation. Methods: Leaders and treatment providers working in community-based opioid treatment programs (OTPs; N = 43) completed qualitative interviews inquiring about their preferences for implementation support (didactic training, performance feedback, and ongoing facilitation). Interviews were coded using a reflexive team approach to identify common a priori and emergent themes. Results: Leaders and providers expressed a preference for brief training that included case examples and research data, along with experiential learning strategies. They reported a desire for performance feedback from internal supervisors, patients, and clinical experts. Providers and leaders had mixed feelings about audio recording sessions but were open to the use of rating sheets to evaluate CM performance. Finally, participants desired both on-call and regularly scheduled ongoing facilitation to support their continued use of CM. Conclusions: This study provides an exemplar of a user-informed approach to adapt implementation support strategies for CM scale-up in community OTPs. Study findings highlight the need for user-informed approaches to training, performance feedback, and facilitation to support sustained CM use in this setting.