Dataset Information

Effect of alternative income assistance schedules on drug use and drug-related harm: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The synchronised monthly disbursement of income assistance, whereby all recipients are paid on the same day, has been associated with increases in illicit drug use and serious associated harms. This phenomenon is often referred to as the cheque effect. Because payment variability can affect consumption patterns, this study aimed to assess whether these harms could be mitigated through a structural intervention that varied income assistance payment timing and frequency.

Methods

This randomised, parallel group trial was done in Vancouver, Canada, and enrolled recipients of income assistance whose drug use increased around payment days. The recipients were randomly assigned 1:2:2 to a control group that received monthly synchronised income assistance payments on government payment days, a staggered group in which participants received single desynchronised monthly income assistance payments, or a split and staggered group in which participants received desynchronised income assistance payments split into two instalments per month, 2 weeks apart, for six monthly payment cycles. Desynchronised payments in the intervention groups were made on individual payment days outside the week of the standard government schedules. Randomisation was through a pre-established stratified block procedure. Investigators and statisticians were masked to group allocation, but participants and front-line staff were not. Complete final results are reported after scheduled interim analyses and the resulting early stoppage of recruitment. Under intention-to-treat specifications, generalised linear mixed models were used to analyse the primary outcome, which was escalations in drug use, predefined as a 40% increase in at least one of: use frequency; use quantity; or number of substances used during the 3 days after government payments. Secondary analyses examined analogous drug use outcomes coinciding with individual payments as well as exposure to violence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02457949.

Findings

Between Oct 27, 2015, and Jan 2, 2019, 45 participants were enrolled to the control group, 72 to the staggered group, and 77 to the split and staggered group. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a significantly reduced likelihood of increased drug use coinciding with government payment days, relative to the control group, in the staggered (adjusted odds ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·20-0·74; p=0·0044) and split and staggered (0·44, 0·23-0·83; p=0·012) groups. Findings were consistent in the secondary analyses of drug use coinciding with individual payment days (staggered group 0·50, 0·27-0·96, p=0·036; split and staggered group 0·49, 0·26-0·94, p=0·030). However, secondary outcome analyses of exposure to violence showed increased harm in the staggered group compared with the control group (2·71, 1·06-6·91, p=0·037). Additionally, 51 individuals had a severe or life-threatening adverse event and there were six deaths, none of which was directly attributed to study participation.

Interpretation

Complex results indicate the potential for modified income assistance payment schedules to mitigate escalations in drug use, provided measures to address unintended harms are also undertaken. Additional research is needed to clarify whether desynchronised schedules produce other unanticipated consequences and if additional measures could mitigate these harms.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Providence Health Care Research Institute, Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Research, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Richardson L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8176782 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGovernment social assistance payments seek to alleviate poverty and address survival needs, but their monthly disbursement may cue increases in illicit drug use. This cue may be magnified when assistance is disbursed simultaneously across the population. Synchronized payments have been linked to escalations in drug use and unintended but severe drug-related harms, including overdose, as well as spikes in demand for health, social, financial and police services.Methods/designThe TASA study examines whether changing payment timing and frequency can mitigate drug-related harm associated with synchronized social assistance disbursement. The study is a parallel arm multi-group randomized controlled trial in which 273 participants are randomly allocated for six assistance cycles to a control or one of two intervention arms on a 1:1:1 basis. Intervention arm participants receive their payments: (1) monthly; or (2) semi-monthly, in each case on days that are not during the week when cheques are normally issued. The study partners with a community-based credit union that has developed a system to vary social assistance payment timing. The primary outcome is a 40 % increase in drug use during the 3 days beginning with cheque issue day compared to other days of the month. Bi-weekly follow-up interviews collect participant information on this and secondary outcomes of interest, including drug-related harm (e.g. non-fatal overdose), exposure to violence and health service utilization. Self-reported data will be supplemented with participant information from health, financial, police and government administrative databases. A longitudinal, nested, qualitative parallel process evaluation explores participant experiences, and a cost-effectiveness evaluation of different disbursement scenarios will be undertaken. Outcomes will be compared between control and intervention arms to identify the impacts of alternative disbursement schedules on drug-related harm resulting from synchronized income assistance.DiscussionThis structural RCT benefits from strong community partnerships, highly detailed outcome measurement, robust methods of randomization and data triangulation with third party administrative databases. The study will provide evidence regarding the potential importance of social assistance program design as a lever to support population health outcomes and service provision for populations with a high prevalence of substance use.Trial registrationNCT02457949 Registered 13 May 2015.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Infant rotavirus vaccines have led to substantial reductions in hospital admissions and deaths due to gastroenteritis, but some studies have reported an elevated risk of intussusception, a rare bowel disorder. This analysis aimed to provide evidence on the potential mortality reduction benefits and intussusception risks of current rotavirus vaccination schedules, and to explore whether alternative schedules could have advantages. METHODS:All 135 low-income and middle-income countries, defined by gross national income per capita of less than US$12?236 in the 2018 fiscal year, were included in the model. Mortality reduction benefits and intussusception risks of rotavirus vaccination were modelled by use of an Excel-based static cohort model with a finely disaggregated age structure. Numbers of rotavirus gastroenteritis deaths and intussusception deaths in each week of age were calculated for all infants born in the year 2015 between birth and age 5·0 years, with and without restrictions on age at administration. Benefit-risk ratios (rotavirus gastroenteritis deaths prevented per excess intussusception death) and other indicators were calculated for two vaccination schedules currently recommended by WHO and 16 alternative schedules. Of these schedules, it was assumed that between one and three doses would be given; the first dose of the rotavirus vaccine would be co-administered with either BCG or diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP)1; and the second or third dose would be co-administered with either DTP1, DTP2, DTP3, or measles (Meas)1. FINDINGS:A three-dose schedule co-administered with DTP (without age restrictions) could prevent about 74?000 (95% uncertainty interval 59?000-100?000) rotavirus gastroenteritis deaths (38% reduction) and could lead to 201 (77-550) excess intussusception deaths (1·4% increase) compared with no vaccination, resulting in a benefit-risk ratio of 369:1 (160:1-895:1). The benefit-risk ratio was most favourable when the relative risk of intussusception was assumed to decline with the national under-5 mortality rate (2386:1) and least favourable with pessimistic assumptions about access to hospital for intussusception treatment (168:1). Schedules that involve giving the first dose with BCG and the second with DTP1 had the fewest excess intussusception deaths and most favourable benefit-risk ratios. INTERPRETATION:Rotavirus vaccines have a favourable benefit-risk profile in LMICs. Neonatal schedules have the potential to prevent more rotavirus gastroenteritis deaths and cause fewer excess intussusception deaths than the schedules currently recommended by WHO, but more efficacious rotavirus vaccines would be needed to achieve more substantial mortality reduction benefits. FUNDING:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of nursing home residents with dementia experience behavioural and psychological symptoms like apathy, agitation, and anxiety. According to analyses of prescription prevalence in Germany, antipsychotic drugs are regularly prescribed as first-line treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in persons with dementia, although guidelines clearly prioritise non-pharmacological interventions. Frequently, antipsychotic drugs are prescribed for inappropriate reasons and for too long without regular reviewing. The use of antipsychotics is associated with adverse events like increased risk of falling, stroke, and mortality. The aim of the study is to investigate whether a person-centred care approach, successfully evaluated in nursing homes in the United Kingdom, can be implemented in German nursing homes and, in comparison with a control group, can result in a clinically relevant reduction of the proportion of residents with antipsychotic prescriptions.Methods/designThe study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing an intervention group (two-day initial training on person-centred care and ongoing training and support programme) with a control group. Both study groups will receive, as optimised usual care, a medication review by an experienced psychiatrist/geriatrician providing feedback to the prescribing physician. Overall, 36 nursing homes in East, North, and West Germany will be randomised. The primary outcome is the proportion of residents receiving at least one antipsychotic prescription (long-term medication) after 12 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are residents' quality of life, agitated behaviour, as well as safety parameters like falls and fall-related medical attention. A health economic evaluation and a process evaluation will be performed alongside the study.DiscussionTo improve care, a reduction of the current high prescription rate of antipsychotics in nursing homes by the intervention programme is expected.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02295462.

Project description:The monthly disbursement of social assistance (SA) payments to people who use illicit drugs (PWUD) has been temporally associated with increases in drug-related harm. Yet, whether SA receipt changes drug use intensity compared to levels of use at other times in the month has not been established. We therefore examined this relationship among PWUD in Vancouver, Canada (2005-2013).Data were derived from prospective cohorts of HIV-positive and HIV-negative PWUD. Every six months, participants were asked about their illicit drug use during the last 180 days and the past week. We determined whether SA receipt occurred within the assessment's one-week recall period. We employed generalized estimating equations controlling for confounders to examine the relationship between SA receipt and the change in drug use intensity, defined as a 100% increase in the average times per day a given drug was used in the last week compared to the previous 6 months. We tested the robustness of this relationship by stratifying analyses by whether individuals primarily used stimulants, illicit opioids or engaged in polydrug use and examining the timing of SA receipt relative to date of assessment.Our study included 2661 individuals (median age 36, 32% female) with 1415 (53.2%) reporting SA receipt occurring within the one-week recall period of the assessment at least once. SA receipt was independently associated with intensified drug use (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]: 1.79; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.53, 2.09), and remained significant when stratified by primary use of stimulants (AOR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.54, 2.26), opioids (AOR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.23, 3.13) and polydrug use (AOR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.10).We found a temporal association between SA receipt and drug use intensification. While the health and social benefits of SA are significant, these findings suggest that alternative disbursement strategies, such as staggered or smaller and more frequent SA payments may be able to mitigate drug-related harm. Alternatives should be tested rigorously.

Project description:BackgroundPersons with disability (PWD) experience disproportionately high poverty rates in Canada. This trend is apparent especially among youth compared to those who develop disabilities later in life. PWD in poverty have additional needs that increase barriers to full participation in society and translate to higher basic costs for daily living. Despite the existence of income assistance programs in Canada to mitigate income inequalities faced by PWDs, access to these programs can be limited.ObjectiveTo describe use of income assistance for young adults with disability in British Columbia for the development of potential approaches to improve realized access to these programs.MethodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using British Columbia linked administrative data. We described differences in income assistance use among PWD by the level of special education funding received during primary school education (from most to least; Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Unfunded, and no special education) and family composition. We also provided longitudinal patterns of income assistance use.ResultsOf 218,324 young adults, 88% received no special education, 0.1% used Level One, 1.6% used Level Two, 2.9% used Level Three, and 7.1% used Unfunded special education coding. Young adults with Level One special education funding had the highest rates of hospitalizations and continuing care, with no hospitalization due to homelessness. Those with Level Three special education coding had higher rates of hospitalization and hospitalization due to homelessness than Level Two young adults. When transitioning to adulthood initially, Level One and Two funded individuals used relatively more disability income assistance than individuals from the other funding levels. Nearly all BCEA users with higher funded special education codes used this disability-specific program, while lesser funded special education codes used the Temporary Assistance more frequently, for a longer duration and were more likely to be persistent Temporary Assistance users.ConclusionsSustainable and reliable access to income assistance programs remains an issue across the heterogeneity of needs faced by young adults with disability.