Evaluating provider report of fidelity to contingency management in opioid treatment programs

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Elizabeth Casline , Kelli Scott , Cara M. Murphy , Bryan R. Garner , Sara J. Becker
{"title":"Evaluating provider report of fidelity to contingency management in opioid treatment programs","authors":"Elizabeth Casline ,&nbsp;Kelli Scott ,&nbsp;Cara M. Murphy ,&nbsp;Bryan R. Garner ,&nbsp;Sara J. Becker","doi":"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>With growing adoption of contingency management (CM) in addiction treatment programs, ensuring intervention fidelity over time is essential for improving patient outcomes. Nonetheless, ensuring an intervention is delivered as intended can be time- and resource-intensive for organizations. Finding ways to monitor fidelity without unduly burdening health systems is critical.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study evaluated the feasibility of using provider report to monitor CM fidelity compared to traditional observer ratings using the CM Competence Scale, leveraging data from 28 opioid treatment programs that participated in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Providers (<em>n</em> = 86) reported CM fidelity across 3143 sessions with observer ratings conducted for 72 of these sessions from 29 providers to assess concurrence of provider- and observer-ratings.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Providers reported high fidelity for most CM practices, with high concordance with ratings from trained observers on practices that were easily observable/objective (e.g., discussing reinforcement earned in current and future session). In contrast, concordance between provider and observer ratings was lower for more nuanced practices (e.g., making connections between CM and the patients’ broader treatment and recovery goals).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Overall, our findings suggest that while provider-report may effectively capture many aspects of CM delivery, discrepancies in fidelity reporting of specific CM practices warrant further investigation. Future research is needed to determine the optimal approaches for ensuring providers consistently deliver all CM elements with fidelity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11322,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence","volume":"267 ","pages":"Article 112544"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871624014698","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

With growing adoption of contingency management (CM) in addiction treatment programs, ensuring intervention fidelity over time is essential for improving patient outcomes. Nonetheless, ensuring an intervention is delivered as intended can be time- and resource-intensive for organizations. Finding ways to monitor fidelity without unduly burdening health systems is critical.

Methods

This study evaluated the feasibility of using provider report to monitor CM fidelity compared to traditional observer ratings using the CM Competence Scale, leveraging data from 28 opioid treatment programs that participated in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Providers (n = 86) reported CM fidelity across 3143 sessions with observer ratings conducted for 72 of these sessions from 29 providers to assess concurrence of provider- and observer-ratings.

Results

Providers reported high fidelity for most CM practices, with high concordance with ratings from trained observers on practices that were easily observable/objective (e.g., discussing reinforcement earned in current and future session). In contrast, concordance between provider and observer ratings was lower for more nuanced practices (e.g., making connections between CM and the patients’ broader treatment and recovery goals).

Conclusions

Overall, our findings suggest that while provider-report may effectively capture many aspects of CM delivery, discrepancies in fidelity reporting of specific CM practices warrant further investigation. Future research is needed to determine the optimal approaches for ensuring providers consistently deliver all CM elements with fidelity.
评估阿片类药物治疗项目中对应急管理的忠实度的提供者报告。
随着成瘾治疗项目中越来越多地采用应急管理(CM),确保长期干预的保真度对于改善患者预后至关重要。尽管如此,对于组织来说,确保按预期交付干预可能是时间和资源密集型的。在不给卫生系统造成过度负担的情况下,找到监测保真度的方法至关重要。方法:本研究评估了使用提供者报告来监测CM保真度的可行性,与使用CM能力量表的传统观察者评分相比,利用28个阿片类药物治疗项目的数据,这些项目参与了一项混合实施-有效性试验。供应商(n = 86)报告了3143次会议的CM保真度,其中对来自29个供应商的72次会议进行了观察员评级,以评估供应商和观察员评级的一致性。结果:提供者报告了大多数管理实践的高保真度,与训练有素的观察者对容易观察/客观的实践的评级高度一致(例如,讨论当前和未来会议中获得的强化)。相比之下,对于更细致的实践(例如,在CM与患者更广泛的治疗和康复目标之间建立联系),提供者和观察者评分之间的一致性较低。结论:总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,虽然提供者报告可以有效地捕捉到CM交付的许多方面,但在特定CM实践的保真度报告中的差异值得进一步调查。未来的研究需要确定最佳的方法,以确保供应商始终如一地交付所有的配置管理元素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol dependence
Drug and alcohol dependence 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
409
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Drug and Alcohol Dependence is an international journal devoted to publishing original research, scholarly reviews, commentaries, and policy analyses in the area of drug, alcohol and tobacco use and dependence. Articles range from studies of the chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies employing methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信