Dataset Information

Using pay for performance to improve treatment implementation for adolescent substance use disorders: results from a cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To test whether pay for performance (P4P) is an effective method to improve adolescent substance use disorder treatment implementation and efficacy. DESIGN:Cluster randomized trial. SETTING:Community-based treatment organizations. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty-nine community-based treatment organizations, 105 therapists, and 986 adolescent patients (953 with complete data). INTERVENTION:Community-based treatment organizations were assigned to 1 of the following conditions: the implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or the P4P experimental condition. In addition to delivering the same evidence-based treatment (ie, using the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]), each organization received standardized levels of funding, training, and coaching from the treatment developers. Therapists in the P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ie, A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions (ie, target A-CRA) that has been found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Outcomes included ACRA competence (ie, a therapist-level implementation measure), target A-CRA (ie, a patient-level implementation measure), and remission status (ie, a patient-level treatment effectiveness measure). RESULTS:Relative to therapists in the IAU control condition, therapists in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to demonstrate A-CRA competence (24.0% vs 8.9%; event rate ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12- 4.48; P=.02). Relative to patients in the IAU control condition, patients in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to receive target A-CRA (17.3% vs 2.5%; odds ratio, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.53-17.62; P=.01). However, no significant differences were found between conditions with regard to patients' end-of-treatment remission status. CONCLUSION:Pay for performance can be an effective method of improving treatment implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01016704

SUBMITTER: Garner BR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6746231 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using pay for performance to improve treatment implementation for adolescent substance use disorders: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Garner Bryan R BR Godley Susan H SH Dennis Michael L ML Hunter Brooke D BD Bair Christin M L CM Godley Mark D MD

Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 20121001 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To test whether pay for performance (P4P) is an effective method to improve adolescent substance use disorder treatment implementation and efficacy.<h4>Design</h4>Cluster randomized trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Community-based treatment organizations.<h4>Participants</h4>Twenty-nine community-based treatment organizations, 105 therapists, and 986 adolescent patients (953 with complete data).<h4>Intervention</h4>Community-based treatment organizations were assigned to 1 of the followin ...[more]

PMID: 22893231

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPay-for-performance (P4P) has been recommended as a promising strategy to improve implementation of high-quality care. This study examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of a P4P strategy found to be highly effective in improving the implementation and effectiveness of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an evidence-based treatment (EBT) for adolescent substance use disorders (SUDs).MethodsBuilding on a $30 million national initiative to implement A-CRA in SUD treatment settings, urn randomization was used to assign 29 organizations and their 105 therapists and 1173 patients to one of two conditions (implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or IAU+P4P experimental condition). It was not possible to blind organizations, therapists, or all research staff to condition assignment. All treatment organizations and their therapists received a multifaceted implementation strategy. In addition to those IAU strategies, therapists in the IAU+P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes (target A-CRA). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which represent the difference between the two conditions in average cost per treatment organization divided by the corresponding average difference in effectiveness per organization, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the primary outcomes.ResultsAt trial completion, 15 organizations were randomized to the IAU condition and 14 organizations were randomized to the IAU+P4P condition. Data from all 29 organizations were analyzed. Cluster-level analyses suggested the P4P strategy led to significantly higher average total costs compared to the IAU control condition, yet this average increase of 5% resulted in a 116% increase in the average number of months therapists demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ICER = $333), a 325% increase in the average number of patients who received the targeted dosage of treatment (ICER = $453), and a 325% increase in the number of days of abstinence per patient in treatment (ICER = $8.134). Further supporting P4P as a cost-effective implementation strategy, the cost per QALY was only $8681 (95% confidence interval $1191-$16,171).ConclusionThis study provides experimental evidence supporting P4P as a cost-effective implementation strategy.Trial registrationNCT01016704 .

Project description:BackgroundPay-for-performance (P4P) models are intended to promote quality of care in both hospitals and primary care settings. They are considered as a means of changing medical practices, particularly in primary care.ObjectivesThe first objective of this study was to assess how performance indicators changed over time, measured through "Remuneration on Public Health Objectives" (ROSP) scores, between 2017 and 2020 in a large French region (Grand Est region), and to compare this evolution in the rural vs. urban areas of the region. The second objective was to focus on the area with the least improvement in ROSP scores and to investigate whether the scores and the available sociodemographic characteristics of the area were associated.MethodsFirst, we measured the evolution over time of P4P indicators (i.e., ROSP scores) obtained from the regional health insurance system, for GP practices in the Grand Est region between 2017 and 2020. We then compared the scores between the Aube Department and the rest of the region (urban areas). To address the second objective, we focused on the area found to have the least improvement in indicators to investigate whether there was a relationship between ROSP score and sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsMore than 40,000 scores were collected. We observed an overall improvement in scores over the study period. The urban area (Grand Est region minus the Aube) scored better than the rural area (Aube) for chronic disease management [median 0.91 (0.84-0.95) vs. 0.90(0.79-0.94), p < 0.001] and prevention [median 0.36 (0.22-0.45) vs. 0.33 (0.17-0.43), p < 0.001], but not for efficiency, where the rural area (Aube) performed better [median 0.67(0.56-0.74) vs. 0.69 (0.57-0.75 in the rest of the Grand Est region, p = 0.004]. In the rural area, we found no significant association between ROSP scores and sociodemographic characteristics, except for extreme rurality in some sub-areas.ConclusionsAt the regional level, the overall improvement in scores observed between 2017 and 2020 suggests that the implementation of ROSP indicators have improved the quality of care, particularly in urban areas. These results also suggest that efforts should be focused on rural areas, which already had the lowest scores at the start of the P4P program.

Project description:BackgroundThis article describes a study protocol for testing the Measurement Training and Feedback System for Implementation (MTFS-I) and comparing two implementation strategies for MTFS-I delivery. MTFS-I is a web-based treatment quality improvement system designed to increase the delivery of evidence-based interventions for behavioral health problems in routine care settings. This version of MTFS-I focuses on family-based services (FBS) for adolescent substance use. FBS, comprising both family participation in treatment and family therapy technique use, have achieved the strongest evidence base for adolescent substance use and are a prime candidate for upgrading treatment quality in outpatient care. For FBS to fulfill their potential for widespread dissemination, FBS implementation must be bolstered by effective quality procedures that support sustainable delivery in usual care.Methods/designAdapted from measurement feedback systems for client outcomes, MTFS-I contains three synergistic components: (a) weekly reporter training modules to instruct therapists in reliable post-session self-reporting on FBS utilization; (b) weekly mock session videos of FBS interventions (5-8 min) for supportive training in, and practice coding of, high-quality FBS; and (c) monthly feedback reports to therapists and supervisors displaying aggregated data on therapist-reported FBS use. MTFS-I is hosted online and requires approximately 20 min per week to complete. The study will experimentally compare two well-established implementation strategies designed to foster ongoing MTFS-I usage: Core Training, consisting of two 3-h training sessions focused on FBS site mapping, selecting FBS improvement goals, and sustaining MTFS-I, followed by routine remote technical assistance; and Core + Facilitation, which boosts Core Training sessions with collaborative phone-based clinical consultation and on-site facilitation meetings for 1 year to promote FBS goal achievement. The study design is a cluster randomized trial testing Core Training versus Core + Facilitation in ten substance use treatment clinics. Study aims will compare conditions on MTFS-I uptake, FBS delivery (based on therapist-report and observational data), and 1-year client outcomes.DiscussionStudy contributions to implementation science and considerations of MTFS-I sustainability are discussed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03342872 . Registered 10 November 2017.

Project description:IntroductionYouth involved in the justice system have high rates of alcohol and other drug use, but limited treatment engagement. JJ-TRIALS tested implementation activities with community supervision (CS) and behavioral health (BH) agencies to improve screening, identification of substance use service need, referral, and treatment initiation and engagement, guided by the BH Services Cascade and EPIS frameworks. This paper summarizes intervention impacts on referrals to treatment among youth on CS.MethodsThis multisite cluster-randomized trial involved 18 matched pairs of sites in 36 counties in seven states randomly assigned to core or enhanced conditions after implementing the core intervention at all sites for six months. Enhanced sites received external facilitation for local change team activities to reduce unmet treatment needs; Core sites were encouraged to form interagency workgroups. The dependent variable was percentage referred to treatment among youth in need (N = 14,012). Two-level Bayesian regression assessed factors predicting referral across all sites and time periods. Generalized linear mixed models using logit transformation tested two hypotheses: (H1) referrals will increase from baseline to the experimental period, (H2) referral increases will be larger in enhanced sites than in core sites.ResultsAlthough the intervention significantly increased referral, condition did not significantly predict referral across all time periods. Youth who tested drug positive, had an alcohol/other drug-related or felony charge, were placed in secure detention or assigned more intensive supervision, or who were White were more likely to be referred. H1 (p < .05) and H2 (p < .0001) were both significant in the hypothesized direction. Interaction analyses comparing site pair differences showed that findings were not consistent across sites.ConclusionsThe percentage of youth referred to treatment increased compared with baseline overall, and enhanced sites showed larger increases in referrals over time. However, variations in effects suggest that site-level differences were important. Researchers should carry out mixed methods studies to further understand reasons for the inconsistent findings within randomized site pairs, and how to further improve treatment referrals across CS and BH systems. Findings also highlight that even when CS agencies work collaboratively with BH providers to improve referrals, most justice-involved youth who need SU services are not referred.

Dataset Information

Using pay for performance to improve treatment implementation for adolescent substance use disorders: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Publications

Using pay for performance to improve treatment implementation for adolescent substance use disorders: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets