Contingency management with stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use among individuals with HIV: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality among people with HIV (PWH), many are ambivalent about engaging in treatment and experience variable responses to treatment. We describe the rationale, aims, and study design for the Financial Incentives, Randomization, with Stepped Treatment (FIRST) Trial, a multi-site randomized controlled efficacy trial. METHODS: PWH in care recruited from clinics across the United States who reported unhealthy alcohol use, had a phosphatidylethanol (PEth) >20 ng/mL, and were not engaged in formal alcohol treatment were randomized to integrated contingency management with stepped care versus treatment as usual. The intervention involved two steps; Step 1: Contingency management (n = 5 sessions) with potential rewards based on 1) short-term abstinence; 2) longer-term abstinence; and 3) completion of healthy activities to promote progress in addressing alcohol consumption or conditions potentially impacted by alcohol; Step 2: Addiction physician management (n = 6 sessions) plus motivational enhancement therapy (n = 4 sessions). Participants' treatment was stepped up at week 12 if they lacked evidence of longer-term abstinence. Primary outcome was abstinence at week 24. Secondary outcomes included alcohol consumption (assessed by TLFB and PEth) and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Index 2.0 scores; exploratory outcomes included progress in addressing medical conditions potentially impacted by alcohol. Protocol adaptations due to the COVID-19 pandemic are described. CONCLUSIONS: The FIRST Trial is anticipated to yield insights on the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of integrated contingency management with stepped care to address unhealthy alcohol use among PWH. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT03089320.

Outpatient healthcare personnel knowledge and attitudes towards infection prevention measures for protection from respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge and attitudes toward infection control measures are important determinants of practices that can protect them from transmission of infectious diseases. METHODS: Healthcare personnel were recruited from Emergency Departments and outpatient clinics at seven sites. They completed knowledge surveys at the beginning and attitude surveys at the beginning and end of each season of participation. Attitudes toward infection prevention and control measures, especially medical masks and N95 respirators, were compared. The proportion of participants who correctly identified all components of an infection control bundle for seven clinical scenarios was calculated. RESULTS: The proportion of participants in the medical mask group who reported at least one reason to avoid using medical masks fell from 88.5% on the pre-season survey to 39.6% on the post-season survey (odds ratio [OR] for preseason vs. postseason 0.11, 95% CI 0.10-0.14). Among those wearing N95 respirators, the proportion fell from 87.9% to 53.6% (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.21-0.28). Participants correctly identified all components of the infection control bundle for 4.9% to 38.5% of scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes toward medical masks and N95 respirators improved significantly between the beginning and end of each season. The proportion of HCP who correctly identified the infection control precautions needed for clinical scenarios was low, but it improved over successive years of participation in the study.

Take-home kits to detect respiratory viruses among healthcare personnel: Lessons learned from a cluster randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel (HCP) working in outpatient settings routinely interact with patients with acute respiratory illnesses. Absenteeism following symptom development and lack of staff trained to obtain samples limit efforts to identify pathogens among infected HCP. METHODS: The Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial assessed respiratory infection incidence among HCP between 2011 and 2015. Research assistants obtained anterior nasal and oropharyngeal swabs from HCP in the workplace following development of respiratory illness symptoms and randomly while asymptomatic. Participants received take-home kits to self-collect swabs when absent from work. Samples mailed to a central laboratory were tested for respiratory viruses by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Among 2,862 participants, 3,467 swabs were obtained from symptomatic participants. Among symptomatic HCP, respiratory virus was detected in 904 of 3,467 (26.1%) samples. Self-collected samples by symptomatic HCP at home had higher rates of viral detection (40.3%) compared to 24% obtained by trained research assistants in the workplace (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial, take-home kits were an easily implemented, effective method to self-collect samples by HCP. Other studies have previously shown relative equivalence of self-collected samples to those obtained by trained healthcare workers. Take-home kit self-collection could diminish workforce exposures and decrease the demand for personnel protective equipment worn to protect workers who collect respiratory samples.