Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas.

Introduction: Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program. Conclusions: A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

A Model for Evaluating Total Costs of Care and Cost Savings of Specialty Condition-Based Care for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in an Integrated Practice Unit.

OBJECTIVES: The viability of specialty condition-based care via integrated practice units (IPUs) requires a comprehensive understanding of total costs of care. Our primary objective was to introduce a model to evaluate costs and potential costs savings using time-driven activity-based costing comparing IPU-based nonoperative management with traditional nonoperative management and IPU-based operative management with traditional operative management for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Secondarily, we assess drivers of incremental cost differences between IPU-based care and traditional care. Finally, we model potential cost savings through diverting patients from traditional operative management to IPU-based nonoperative management. METHODS: We developed a model to evaluate costs using time-driven activity-based costing for hip and knee OA care pathways within a musculoskeletal IPU compared with traditional care. We identified differences in costs and drivers of cost differences and developed a model to demonstrate potential cost savings through diverting patients from operative intervention. RESULTS: Weighted average costs of IPU-based nonoperative management were lower than traditional nonoperative management and lower in IPU-based operative management than traditional operative management. Key drivers of incremental cost savings included care led by surgeons in partnership with associate providers, modified physical therapy programs with self-management, and judicious use of intra-articular injections. Substantial savings were modeled by diverting patients toward IPU-based nonoperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Costing models involving musculoskeletal IPUs demonstrate favorable costs and cost savings compared with traditional management of hip or knee OA. More effective team-based care and utilization of evidence-based nonoperative strategies can drive the financial viability of these innovative care models.

¡Míranos! a Comprehensive Preschool Obesity Prevention Program in Low-Income Latino Children: One-year Results of a Clustered Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Test a culturally tailored obesity prevention intervention in low-income, minority preschool-age children. DESIGN: A three-group clustered randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve Head Start Centers were randomly assigned to a center-based intervention, a combined center- and home-based intervention, or control using a 1:1:1 ratio. The center-based intervention modified center physical activity and nutrition policies, staff practices, and child behaviors, while the home-based intervention supported parents for obesity prevention at home. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint was change in children's body mass index (BMI; kg/m2) at posttest immediately following completion of the 8-month intervention. Secondary endpoints included standardized scores for BMI (BMIz) and body weight (WAZ), and BMI percentiles (BMI pctl). PARTICIPANTS: Three-year-old children enrolled in Head Start in San Antonio, Texas, with written parent consent (N=325), 87% Latino; 57% female with mean age (SD) of 3.58 years (0.29). RESULTS: Change in BMI at posttest was 1.28 (0.97), 1.28 (0.87), and 1.41 (0.71) in the center+home-based intervention, center-based intervention, and control, respectively. There was no significant difference in BMI change between center+home-based intervention and control or center-based intervention and control at posttest. BMIz (adjusted difference -0.12 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.01], p = .06) and WAZ (adjusted difference, -0.09 [-0.17 to -0.002], p = .04) were reduced for children in center+home-based intervention compared to control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no reduction in BMI at posttest in children who received the intervention. Findings shed light on methodological challenges in childhood obesity research and offer future directions to explore health equity-oriented obesity prevention.

Most recent, modal, or median heroin purchase: Does it matter when estimating market size?

BACKGROUND: Assessing the size of illicit drug markets is an important activity of many government agencies; however, the expenditure-based method for estimating market size relies on the relatively untested assumption that the cash value of the most recent purchase is representative of the average purchase amount. Using panel data, we test the representativeness of the most recent, modal and median purchase compared to the average purchase amount. METHODS: Data were drawn from a prior study that collected daily transaction-level purchase data from a sample of 120 people who were using heroin regularly. The same study participants completed two distinct two-week waves of data collection, separated by six months. T-tests and bootstrapping were used to detect differences within each wave between the average cash value of participant heroin purchases and the cash value of their most recent, modal and median heroin purchases. RESULTS: In both waves, we found (a) no evidence that the expected value of the most recent purchase differs from the expected value of the average purchase, and (b) the expected values of the modal and median purchases are smaller than the expected value of the average purchase. These results imply that estimates of total market size based on the modal or median purchase will suffer from a significant downward bias, but that estimates based on the most recent purchase will be unbiased. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence in support of using the most recent (but not the modal or the median) purchase to estimate market size for heroin.

Economic Evaluation of a Crisis Residential Program.

This study assessed the cost savings to the local health care system from using a 16-bed crisis residential facility (the Inn) in Austin, Texas, instead of hospitalization, for individuals with acute psychiatric illness (N=1,364) during FY2017-FY2019. Health service utilization data were obtained from the provider and Central Texas's regional health information exchange. Unit cost data were obtained from the provider, Austin State Hospital, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Results indicated that the Inn saved the health care system up to $2.8 million annually. Future work can use these findings to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the mental health care system.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas. DESIGN: Single group intervention and economic analysis PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening. INTERVENTION: The program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders. MAIN MEASURES: We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.

The short-term impact on economic outcomes of SBIRT interventions implemented in reproductive health care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) administered in reproductive health care settings on a variety of economic outcomes, including general health care utilization, criminal activity, and motor vehicle crashes. Whether and by how much SBIRT affects economic outcomes are important unanswered questions related to the economic impact of this technique. METHODS: We collected data as part of a randomized clinical trial that examined whether SBIRT delivered electronically (e-SBIRT) or by a clinician (SBIRT) is superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) for substance misuse. Participants were a convenience sample of 439 women from two reproductive health care centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs, or misused prescription medication. For each participant, we measured economic outcomes by self-report 6 months pre- and post-intervention. We used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the impact of e-SBIRT and SBIRT, compared to EUC, on changes in each of the economic outcomes from pre- to post-intervention. RESULTS: None of the difference-in-differences estimates weas statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: In a population of women receiving routine care in reproductive health care settings, we did not find a significant effect of either e-SBIRT or SBIRT, compared to EUC, on general health care utilization, criminal activity, or motor vehicle outcomes. However, individual trials are typically underpowered to detect effects that are small but important from a public health perspective. These results may be crucial for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the economic impact of SBIRT programs from a variety of perspectives.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for implementing motivational interviewing for substance misuse on medical inpatient units.

BACKGROUND: This study conducted cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of three strategies for implementing motivational interviewing for substance misuse on general medical inpatient units: workshop, apprenticeship, and consult. METHODS: The economic analyses were conducted prospectively alongside a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial comprising 38 medical providers, 1173 inpatients, and four consultation-liaison motivational interviewing experts. The trial took place in a university affiliated teaching hospital in New Haven, CT, USA. After completing a 1-day workshop on motivational interviewing, providers were randomized to conditions. The primary outcome measure was the number of study-eligible patients who received a motivational interview. The economic analyses included the costs of both start-up and on-going activities in each condition. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to determine cost effectiveness. Results are presented from the healthcare provider (i.e., hospital) perspective in 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: The total cost per patient receiving a motivational interview averaged $804.53, $606.52, and $185.65 for workshop, apprenticeship, and consult, respectively. Workshop and apprenticeship were extended dominated by the combination of consult and doing nothing. Doing nothing is cost effective when the willingness-to-pay for an additional patient receiving a motivational interview is less than $185.65, and consult is cost-effective when the willingness-to-pay for an additional patient receiving a motivational interview is greater than $185.65. CONCLUSIONS: Given that typical reimbursements for brief intervention services for substance misuse are $35-$65, none of the three implementation strategies is likely to be economically viable from the healthcare provider perspective.

Abstinence outcomes among women in reproductive health centers administered clinician or electronic brief interventions.

Treatment of substance use in women seeking reproductive healthcare is crucial for the health of both women and their offspring. Although abstinence from all substance use during pregnancy is optimal, it is difficult to achieve. This secondary analysis reports abstinence outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance use among women seeking reproductive healthcare services. Women who screened positive for substance use were randomly assigned to either clinician-administered SBIRT, an electronically-administered brief intervention (e-SBIRT), or an enhanced usual care condition. At a 6-month follow-up assessment, compared to enhanced usual care, the clinician-administered SBIRT increased 1-month point prevalence of abstinence from the primary substance by 7.7%, and e-SBIRT increased abstinence by 12.8%. Both brief interventions were more useful than enhanced usual care and could increase substance use abstinence rates among women in reproductive healthcare clinics. The electronic brief intervention is particularly attractive given that it appears as efficacious as, but requires fewer resources than, clinician-delivered brief interventions.

Implementing Motivational Interviewing for Substance Misuse on Medical Inpatient Units: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: General medical hospitals provide care for a disproportionate share of patients who misuse substances. Hospitalization provides a unique opportunity to identify and motivate patients to address their substance misuse. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of three strategies for implementing motivational interviewing for substance misuse with general medical inpatients. DESIGN: Type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials.gov: NCT01825057). PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight providers (physicians, physician assistants, nurses) from 13 general medical inpatient services, and 1173 of their patients admitted to an academically affiliated acute care hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation strategies included (1) a continuing medical education workshop on detection of substance misuse and provision of a motivational interview; (2) workshop plus bedside supervision (apprenticeship condition); and (3) a workshop plus ability to place a medical order for an interview from a consultation-liaison service (consult condition). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the percentage of study-eligible patients who received an interview for substance misuse and the integrity (adherence, competence) of the interviews. The secondary outcome was the percent of patient statements within the interviews that indicated motivation for reducing substance misuse. KEY RESULTS: 20.5% of patients in the consult condition received an interview, compared to 0.8% (Hedge's g = 1.49) and 3.0% (Hedge's g = 1.26) in the respective workshop only and apprenticeship conditions (p < 0.001). Motivational interviews in the consult condition were performed with more fundamental motivational interviewing adherence and competence than the other conditions. Most statements made by patients during the interviews favored reducing substance misuse, with no differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' ability to place an order to have experts from the consultation-liaison service deliver a motivational interview was a more effective implementation strategy than a workshop or apprenticeship method for ensuring motivational interviewing is available to medical inpatients who misuse substances. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT01825057.

Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial to test "¡Míranos! Look at Us, We Are Healthy!" - an early childhood obesity prevention program.

BACKGROUND: One in three Head Start children is either overweight or obese. We will test the efficacy of an early childhood obesity prevention program, "¡Míranos! Look at Us, We Are Healthy!" (¡Míranos!), which promotes healthy growth and targets multiple energy balance-related behaviors in predominantly Latino children in Head Start. The ¡Míranos! intervention includes center-based (policy changes, staff development, gross motor program, and nutrition education) and home-based (parent engagement/education and home visits) interventions to address key enablers and barriers in obesity prevention in childcare. In partnership with Head Start, we have demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed interventions to influence energy balance-related behaviors favorably in Head Start children. METHODS: Using a three-arm cluster randomized controlled design, 12 Head Start centers will be randomly assigned in equal number to one of three conditions: 1) a combined center- and home-based intervention, 2) center-based intervention only, or 3) comparison. The interventions will be delivered by trained Head Start staff during the academic year. A total of 444 3-year-old children (52% females; n = 37 per center at baseline) in two cohorts will be enrolled in the study and followed prospectively 1 year post-intervention. Data collection will be conducted at baseline, immediately post-intervention, and at the one-year follow-up and will include height, weight, physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviors, sleep duration and screen time, gross motor development, dietary intake and food and activity preferences. Information on family background, parental weight, PA- and nutrition-related practices and behaviors, PA and nutrition policy and environment at center and home, intervention program costs, and treatment fidelity will also be collected. DISCUSSION: With endorsement and collaboration of two local Head Start administrators, ¡Míranos!, as a culturally tailored obesity prevention program, is poised to provide evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a policy and environmental approach to prevent early onset of obesity in low-income Latino preschool children. ¡Míranos! can be disseminated to various organized childcare settings, as it is built on the Head Start program and its infrastructure, which set a gold standard for early childhood education, as well as current PA and nutrition recommendations for preschool children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT03590834 ) July 18, 2018.

Assessment of an electronic and clinician-delivered brief intervention on cigarette, alcohol and illicit drug use among women in a reproductive healthcare clinic.

BACKGROUND: Women are at highest risk for development of a substance use disorder during their reproductive years. We recently evaluated the efficacy of an electronic screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (e-SBIRT) and a clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT) compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for reducing overall substance use among women recruited from reproductive health clinics. The present study assessed the impact of the SBIRT interventions within three primary substance subgroups: cigarettes, illicit drugs, and alcohol. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from a 3-group randomized trial comparing e-SBIRT and SBIRT to EUC. For the present study, participants (N = 439) were grouped according to their primary substance: cigarettes, alcohol, or illicit drugs. Differences in days per month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations, modelling linear as well as quadratic effects of time. RESULTS: Cigarettes were the most frequently reported primary substance (n = 251), followed by illicit drugs (n = 137) and alcohol (n = 51). For primary cigarette use the interaction between the linear effect of time and treatment was significant for SBIRT (ß (SE) = -0.067 (0.029), p = .020), but not e-SBIRT, suggesting greater reductions in cigarette use over the first 3 months following treatment with SBIRT compared to EUC. However, the significant interaction of SBIRT with time-squared (ß (SE) = 0.009 (0.004), p = .049) showed that reductions in cigarette use attenuated over time, such that after month 3, monthly reductions in cigarette use were similar between groups. Results followed a similar pattern for primary illicit drug use among the e-SBIRT group in which the interaction of e-SBIRT treatment with linear time (ß (SE) = -0.181 (0.085), p = .033) and quadratic time (ß (SE) = 0.028 (0.012), p = .018) were statistically significant suggesting greater reductions in illicit drug use with e-SBIRT versus EUC, which attenuated with time. Neither SBIRT nor e-SBIRT was associated with a significant reduction in days of alcohol use per month, as compared to EUC. CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive-age women appear to respond differently to electronic- and clinician-delivered interventions, depending on their primary substance. SBIRT reduced use of cigarettes, and e-SBIRT reduced illicit drug use. Although neither intervention reduced primary alcohol use, the sample size was small (n = 51), suggesting a need for further testing in a larger sample.

Cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for women in reproductive health centers.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) for reducing primary substance use among women treated in reproductive health centers. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: New Haven, CT, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 439 women seeking routine care in reproductive health centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs or misused prescription medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC, n = 151), electronic-delivered SBIRT (e-SBIRT, n = 143) or clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT, n = 145). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was days of primary substance abstinence during the 6-month follow-up period. To account for the possibility that patients might substitute a different drug for their primary substance during the 6-month follow-up period, we also considered the number of days of abstinence from all substances. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves determined the relative cost-effectiveness of the three conditions from both the clinic and patient perspectives. FINDINGS: From a health-care provider perspective, e-SBIRT is likely (with probability greater than 0.5) to be cost-effective for any willingness-to-pay value for an additional day of primary-substance abstinence and an additional day of all-substance abstinence. From a patient perspective, EUC is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is less than $0.18 and e-SBIRT is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is greater than $0.18. CONCLUSIONS: e-SBIRT could be a cost-effective approach, from both health-care provider and patient perspectives, for use in reproductive health centers to help women reduce substance misuse.

Cost-effectiveness of individual versus group female-specific cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of individual female-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (I-FS-CBT) versus group female-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (G-FS-CBT). METHODS: This cost-effectiveness study is based on a randomized controlled trial in which 155 women seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder at an academic outpatient clinic were randomized to 12 manual-guided sessions of I-FS-CBT (n = 75) or G-FS-CBT (n = 80). The primary patient outcomes were the number of drinking days and the number of heavy drinking days during the 12-week treatment and 1-year follow-up periods. All cost data (including resource utilizations) were collected prospectively alongside the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to determine the cost-effectiveness of I-FS-CBT relative to G-FS-CBT. Results are presented from the provider perspective. RESULTS: During the 12-week treatment period, G-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective when the threshold value to decision-makers of one fewer drinking day (or one fewer day of heavy drinking) is less than $141 (or $258), and I-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective if the threshold is greater than $141 (or $258). During the 1-year follow-up period, G-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective when the threshold value to decision-makers of one fewer drinking day (or one fewer day of heavy drinking) is less than $54 (or $169), and I-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective if the threshold is greater than $54 (or $169). The results are robust to sensitivity analyses on several key cost parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to I-FS-CBT, G-FS-CBT holds promise as a cost-effective approach, in both the short run and the long run, for improving drinking outcomes of women with alcohol use disorder.

A randomized controlled trial of screening and brief interventions for substance misuse in reproductive health.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment may reduce substance misuse but has received minimal study among women who are treated in reproductive health settings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" that is delivered either electronically or by clinician are more effective than enhanced usual care in decreasing days of primary substance use. STUDY DESIGN: Women from 2 reproductive centers who smoked cigarettes or misused alcohol, illicit drugs, or prescription medication were allocated randomly to "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" delivered electronically or by clinician or to enhanced usual care. Assessments were completed at baseline and at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after a baseline has been established. Coprimary outcomes were days/months of primary substance use and postintervention treatment use. A sample size of 660 women was planned; randomization was stratified by primary substance use and pregnancy status. "Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" groups were compared with enhanced usual care groups with the use of generalized estimation equations, and effect sizes were calculated with the use of Cohen's d. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and January 2015, women were assigned randomly to a group: 143 women (16.8% pregnant) in the electronic-delivered "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" group, 145 women (18.6% pregnant) in the clinician-delivered "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" group, and 151 women (19.2% pregnant) in the enhanced usual care group; the retention was >84%. Based on the generalized estimating equations model, predicted mean days per month of use at baseline for primary substance were 23.9 days (95% confidence interval, 22.4-25.5) for the electronic-delivered group, 22.8 days (95% confidence interval, 21.4-24.3) for the clinician-delivered group, and 23.5 days (95% confidence interval, 22.2, 24.9) for enhanced usual care, which respectively declined to 20.5 days (95% confidence interval, 19.0-22.2), 19.8 days (95% confidence interval,18.5-21.3), and 21.9 days (95% confidence interval, 20.7-23.1) at 1 month; 16.9 days (95% confidence interval, 15.0-19.0), 16.6 days (95% confidence interval, 14.8-18.6), and 19.5 days (95% confidence interval, 18.1-21.1) at 3 months; and 16.3 days (95% confidence interval, 14.3-18.7), 16.3 days (95% confidence interval, 14.4-18.5), and 17.9 days (95% confidence interval, 16.1-19.9) at 6 months. Estimated declines were greater in the electronic-delivered group (ß [standard error]=-0.090[0.034]; P=.008; Cohen's d, 0.19 at 1 month, 0.30 at 3 months, and 0.17 at 6 months) and the clinician-delivered group (ß [standard error]=-0.078[0.037]; P=.038; Cohen's d, 0.17 at 1 month, 0.22 at 3 months, and 0.06 at 6 months) compared with enhanced usual care. Treatment use did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: "Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" significantly decreased days of primary substance use among women in reproductive healthcare centers; neither resulted in more treatment use than enhanced usual care.

Contingency management treatment in cocaine using methadone maintained patients with and without legal problems.

BACKGROUND: Legal difficulties and cocaine use are prevalent in methadone maintenance patients, and they are related to one another, as well as to poor response to methadone treatment. Contingency management (CM) is efficacious for decreasing cocaine use, but the relation of CM treatment to criminal activities has rarely been studied. METHODS: This study evaluated whether baseline legal problems are related to subsequent substance use and illegal activities for cocaine using methadone maintained patients and whether CM differentially improves outcomes depending on baseline legal problems. Using data from four randomized CM trials (N=323), we compared methadone maintained patients with legal problems at the start of study participation to those without initial legal problems. RESULTS: Overall, the addition of CM to standard methadone care improved substance use outcomes regardless of initial legal problems. Endorsement of legal problems within 30days of study initiation was associated with reduced proportion of negative samples submitted during the 12-week treatment period. A significant interaction effect of baseline legal problems and treatment condition was present for subsequent self-reports of illegal activities. Those with baseline legal problems who were assigned to CM had reduced self-reports of reengagement in illegal activity throughout a six month follow-up compared to their counterparts randomized to standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CM to methadone treatment improves substance use outcomes and reduces subsequent illegal activity in cocaine-using methadone patients with legal problems.

Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go?

Contingency management (CM) interventions consistently improve substance abuse treatment outcomes, yet CM remains a highly controversial intervention and is rarely implemented in practice settings. This article briefly outlines the evidence base of CM and then describes 4 of the most often-cited concerns about it: philosophical, motivational, durability, and economic. Data supporting and refuting each of these issues are reviewed. The article concludes with suggestions to address these matters and other important areas for CM research and implementation, with the aims of improving uptake of this efficacious intervention in practice settings and outcomes of patients with substance use disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Effectiveness and Cost of Clinical Supervision for Motivational Interviewing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

The effectiveness of a competency-based supervision approach called Motivational Interviewing Assessment: Supervisory Tools for Enhancing Proficiency (MIA: STEP) was compared to supervision-as-usual (SAU) for increasing clinicians' motivational interviewing (MI) adherence and competence and client retention and primary substance abstinence in a multisite hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial. Participants were 66 clinicians and 450 clients within one of eleven outpatient substance abuse programs. An independent evaluation of audio recorded supervision sessions indicated that MIA: STEP and SAU were highly and comparably discriminable across sites. While clinicians in both supervision conditions improved their MI performance, clinician supervised with MIA: STEP, compared to those in SAU, showed significantly greater increases in the competency in which they used fundamental and advanced MI strategies when using MI across seven intakes through a 16-week follow-up. There were no retention or substance use differences among the clients seen by clinicians in MIA: STEP or SAU. MIA: STEP was substantially more expensive to deliver than SAU. Innovative alternatives to resource-intensive competency-based supervision approaches such as MIA: STEP are needed to promote the implementation of evidence-based practices.

See One, Do One, Order One: a study protocol for cluster randomized controlled trial testing three strategies for implementing motivational interviewing on medical inpatient units.

BACKGROUND: General medical hospitals provide care for a disproportionate share of patients who abuse or are dependent upon substances. This group is among the most costly to treat and has the poorest medical and addiction recovery outcomes. Hospitalization provides a unique opportunity to identify and motivate patients to address their substance use problems in that patients are accessible, have time for an intervention, and are often admitted for complications related to substance use that renders hospitalization a "teachable moment." METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized controlled trial will examine the effectiveness of three different strategies for integrating motivational interviewing (MI) into the practice of providers working within a general medical inpatient hospitalist service: (1) a continuing medical education workshop that provides background and "shows" providers how to conduct MI (See One); (2) an apprenticeship model involving workshop training plus live supervision of bedside practice (Do One); and (3) ordering MI from the psychiatry consultation-liaison (CL) service after learning about it in a workshop (Order One). Thirty providers (physicians, physician assistants, nurses) will be randomized to conditions and then assessed for their provision of MI to 40 study-eligible inpatients. The primary aims of the study are to assess (1) the utilization of MI in each condition; (2) the integrity of MI when providers use it on the medical units; and (3) the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of the three different implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: If implementation of Do One and Order One is successful, the field will have two alternative strategies for supporting medical providers' proficient use of brief behavioral interventions, such as MI, for medical inpatients who use substances problematically. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov ( NCT01825057 ).