ABSTRACT
Contingency management (CM) has robust evidence of effectiveness as an adjunct to medication for opioid use disorders. However, CM implementation in opioid treatment programs has been limited by a myriad of well-documented barriers. One relatively unexplored barrier that may hinder CM implementation is health professional stigma toward patients with opioid use disorders. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 43 health professionals (21 leaders, 22 front-line counselors) from 11 different opioid treatment programs across Rhode Island to explore their familiarity with CM and to elucidate barriers and facilitators to CM implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded by 3 independent raters using a reflexive team approach. Transcripts were analyzed for both a priori and emergent themes. Health professional stigma was identified as an emergent major theme with 4 distinct subthemes: (a) distrust of patients (44%, N = 19); (b) infantilizing views about patients (19%, N = 8); (c) belief that patients do not deserve prizes (19%, N = 8); and (d) recognition of patient self-stigma and community-based stigma (23%, N = 10). In addition, we identified multiple instances of health professional use of potentially stigmatizing language toward patients with opioid use disorders via terms such as drug abuser, addict, and clean or dirty urine screens (70%, N = 30). Stigma themes were identified in 86% of the transcripts, highlighting potential targets for multilevel implementation strategies. Findings of this study suggest that multiple types of health professional stigma should be considered and proactively addressed in efforts by psychologists to implement CM and other evidence-based interventions in opioid treatment programs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Contingency management (CM), a behavioral intervention that provides incentives for achieving treatment goals, is an evidence-based adjunct to 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. This study applied user-informed approaches to adapt a multi-level implementation strategy called the Science to Service Laboratory (SSL) 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 training and support implementation strategies (didactic training, performance feedback, and external facilitation). Our team coded interviews 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 external facilitation to support their continued use of CM. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an exemplar of a user-informed approach to adapt the SSL 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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Contingency management (CM) is one of the only behavioral interventions shown to be effective for the treatment of opioid use disorders when delivered alone and in combination with pharmacotherapy. Despite extensive empirical support, uptake of CM in community settings remains abysmally low. The current study applied user-centered design principles to gather qualitative data on familiarity with CM, current clinical practice, and preferences regarding the implementation of CM in community-based opioid treatment programs. METHODS: Participants were 21 leaders and 22 front-line counselors from 11 community-based opioid treatment programs. Semi-structured interviews were about 45 min long. Transcripts from each interview were coded by independent raters and analyzed using a reflexive team approach. Frequencies of responses were tallied, and queries were run in NVivo to identify exemplar quotes for each code. RESULTS: Results indicated low familiarity with CM, with less than half of the respondents defining CM correctly and over 40% of respondents declining to answer/ did not know. Abstinence was the most commonly recommended CM target, yet over 70% of respondents indicated that urine screens only occurred monthly. Attendance was also a popular recommendation, with respondents suggesting a range of possible indices including counseling, dosing, and/or case management sessions. Regarding the ideal role to administer CM prizes, program directors and supervisors were most commonly recommended, closely followed by front-line counselors. The most commonly suggested strategies to afford CM incentives included soliciting community donations and offering non-financial incentives. CONCLUSIONS: User design principles to understand workflow constraints, target user needs, and simplify the intervention guided this qualitative investigation of CM implementation in opioid treatment programs. Findings highlighted the potential value of flexible, organization-specific definitions of CM attendance and non-financial incentives, as well as active involvement of clinical leaders and supervisors to promote buy in among staff/patients. Respondents were generally optimistic about their ability to fundraise or solicit donations to overcome cost-related barriers of CM. Implications for CM implementation strategies, including the use of targeted leadership coaching focused on sustainability, are explored.
