Dataset Information

Abstinence-contingent wage supplements to promote drug abstinence and employment: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Poverty, unemployment and substance abuse are inter-related problems. This study evaluated the effectiveness of abstinence-contingent wage supplements in promoting drug abstinence and employment in unemployed adults in outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial was conducted in Baltimore, MD, from 2014 to 2019. After a 3-month abstinence initiation and training period, participants (n=91) were randomly assigned to a usual care control group that received employment services or to an abstinence-contingent wage supplement group that received employment services plus abstinence-contingent wage supplements. All participants were invited to work with an employment specialist to seek employment in a community job for 12 months. Abstinence-contingent wage supplement participants could earn training stipends for working with the employment specialist and wage supplements for working in a community job, but had to provide opiate and cocaine-negative urine samples to maximise pay.

Results

Abstinence-contingent wage supplement participants provided significantly more opiate and cocaine-negative urine samples than usual care control participants (65% vs 45%; OR=2.29, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.30, p=0.01) during the 12-month intervention. Abstinence-contingent wage supplement participants were significantly more likely to have obtained employment (59% vs 28%; OR=3.88, 95% CI 1.60 to 9.41, p=0.004) and lived out of poverty (61% vs 30%; OR=3.77, 95% CI 1.57 to 9.04, p=0.004) by the end of the 12-month intervention than usual care control participants.

Conclusion

Abstinence-contingent wage supplements can promote drug abstinence and employment.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02487745.

SUBMITTER: Holtyn AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7259020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Self-harm and suicide increase in times of economic recession. Factors including job loss, austerity measures, financial difficulties and house repossession contribute to the risk. Vulnerable individuals commonly experience difficulties in navigating the benefits system and in accessing the available sources of welfare and debt advice, and this contributes to their distress. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychosocial intervention (the "HOPE" service) for people presenting to hospital emergency departments (ED) following self-harm or in acute distress because of financial, employment, or welfare (benefit) difficulties.A pilot study including randomisation will be employed to determine whether it is possible to undertake a full-scale trial. Twenty people presenting to the ED who have self-harmed, have suicidal thoughts and depression and/or are in crisis and where financial, employment or benefit problems are cited as contributory factors will be asked to consent to random allocation to the intervention or control arm on a 2:1 basis. People who require secondary mental health follow-up will be excluded. Those randomised to the intervention arm will receive up to six sessions with a mental health worker who will provide practical help with financial and other problems. The mental health worker will use the motivational interviewing method in their interactions with participants. Control participants will receive one session signposting them to existing relevant support organisations. Participants will be followed up after 3 months. Participants and the mental health workers will take part in qualitative interviews to enable refinement of the intervention. The acceptability of outcome measures including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, repeat self-harm, EQ5D-5L and questions about debt, employment and welfare benefits will be explored.This study will assess whether a full-scale randomised trial of this novel intervention to prevent self-harm among those distressed because of financial difficulties is feasible, including the acceptability of randomisation, potential rate of recruitment and the acceptability of outcome measures.ISRCTN58531248.

Project description:IntroductionContinued smoking following a cancer diagnosis has substantial health risks including increased overall and cancer-specific mortality, risk of secondary malignancies, cancer treatment toxicity and risk of surgical complications. These risks can be mitigated by quitting smoking. The preoperative period represents a prime opportunity in which to administer robust smoking cessation treatment to both improve health and support and improve surgical outcomes. We will conduct a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of financial incentives delivered contingent on biochemically verified smoking abstinence (contingency management (CM)) in patients with cancer undergoing surgery.Methods and analysisThe study will take place across two study sites, and participants (N=282) who smoke, are diagnosed with or suspected to have any type of operable cancer and have a surgical procedure scheduled in the next 10 days to 5 weeks will be randomised to receive standard care plus Monitoring Only or CM prior to surgery. All patients will receive breath carbon monoxide (CO) tests three times per week, nicotine replacement therapy and counselling. The CM group will also earn payments for self-reported smoking abstinence confirmed by CO breath test ≤4 ppm on an escalating schedule of reinforcement (with a reset if they smoked). Point prevalence abstinence (PPA) outcomes (self-report of 7-day abstinence confirmed by CO≤4 ppm and/or anabasine ≤2 ng/mL) will be assessed on the day of surgery and 6 months after surgery. The effect of CM on 7-day PPA at the time of surgery and 6-month follow-up will be modelled using generalised linear mixed effects models.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and approved by the Medical University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board. We will disseminate our scientific results through traditional research-oriented outlets such as presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04605458.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Poor adherence to medications is a global public health concern with substantial health and cost implications, especially for chronic conditions. In the USA, poor adherence is estimated to cause 125,000 deaths and cost $US100 billion annually. The most successful adherence-promoting strategies that have been identified so far have moderate effect, are relatively costly, and raise availability, feasibility, and/or scalability issues. OBJECTIVE:The main objective of SIGMA (Study on Incentives for Glaucoma Medication Adherence) was to measure the effectiveness on medication adherence of a novel incentive strategy based on behavioral economics that we refer to as adherence-contingent rebates. These rebates offered patients a near-term benefit while leveraging loss aversion and regret and increasing the salience of adherence. METHODS:SIGMA is a 6-month randomized, controlled, open-label, single-center superiority trial with two parallel arms. A total of 100 non-adherent glaucoma patients from the Singapore National Eye Centre were randomized into intervention (adherence-contingent rebates) and usual care (no rebates) arms in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in percentage of adherent days at Month 6. The trial registration number is NCT02271269 and a detailed study protocol has been published elsewhere. FINDINGS:We found that participants who were offered adherence-contingent rebates were adherent to all their medications on 73.1% of the days after 6 months, which is 12.2 percentage points (p?=?0.027) higher than in those not receiving the rebates after controlling for baseline differences. This better behavioral outcome was achieved by rebates averaging 8.07 Singapore dollars ($US5.94 as of 2 November 2017) per month during the intervention period. CONCLUSION:This study shows that simultaneously leveraging several insights from behavioral economics can significantly improve medication adherence rates. The relatively low cost of the rebates and significant health and cost implications of medication non-adherence suggest that this strategy has the potential to cost-effectively improve health outcomes for many conditions.