Dataset Information

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of a novel opioid court to improve identification of need and linkage to medications for opioid use disorder treatment for court-involved adults.

ABSTRACT: In response to the opioid crisis in New York State (NYS), the Unified Court System developed a new treatment court model-the opioid intervention court-designed around 10 Essential Elements of practice to address the flaws of existing drug courts in handling those with opioid addiction via broader inclusion criteria, rapid screening, and linkage to medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD). The new court model is now being rolled out statewide yet, given the innovation of the opioid court, the exact barriers to implementation in different counties with a range of resources are largely unknown. We describe a study protocol for the development and efficacy-test of a new implementation intervention (Opioid Court REACH; Research on Evidence-Based Approaches to Court Health) that will allow the opioid court, as framed by the 10 Essential Elements, to be scaled-up across 10 counties in NYS. Using a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge type-2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, we will test: (a) the implementation impact of Opioid Court REACH in improving implementation outcomes along the opioid cascade of care (screening, referral, treatment enrollment, MOUD initiation), and (b) the clinical and cost effectiveness of Opioid Court REACH in improving public health (treatment retention/court graduation) and public safety (recidivism) outcomes. Opioid Court REACH has the potential to improve management of individuals with opioid addiction in the court system via widespread scale-up of the opioid court model across the U.S., should this study find it to be effective.

SUBMITTER: Elkington KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491168 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) significantly decrease mortality but courts rarely refer participants with opioid use disorder to MOUD providers. Previous qualitative work suggests routine court referrals to MOUD providers are more likely if court team members perceive providers as "trustworthy." Court team members may also be less likely to refer participants to MOUD if they consider MOUD unaffordable, particularly in Florida, which has not expanded Medicaid. Our aims were to explore court team members' 1) perceptions of availability of local trustworthy MOUD providers, 2) characteristics associated with perceptions of availability of local trustworthy MOUD providers, including beliefs about MOUD efficacy, and 3) perceptions of MOUD affordability.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to all criminal problem-solving court and dependency court team members in Florida in 2019 and 2020. Likert scale questions assessed respondent agreement with statements about the availability of any MOUD providers, the availability of trustworthy MOUD providers, and the affordability of MOUD for court participants. An open-ended question explored MOUD barriers. Spearman's rho, Friedman, Kruskal Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for analyzing quantitative data and iterative categorization for qualitative data.ResultsOne hundred fifty-one respondents completed quantitative questions (26% response rate), and 42 completed the qualitative question. Respondents were more likely to agree that local MOUD providers are more available than trustworthy MOUD providers. Perceptions of trustworthy provider availability differed significantly by MOUD type and were associated with MOUD efficacy beliefs. Qualitative results suggest that MOUD providers offering counseling and individualized treatment are more trustworthy.ConclusionsCourt team MOUD beliefs may influence their perceptions of providers, or negative experiences with providers may influence court team MOUD beliefs. Improving court team perceptions of local MOUD providers may be critical for facilitating court participant treatment access.

Project description:BackgroundVeterans involved in the legal system are at high risk for overdose but have lower receipt of medications for opioid use disorder than other veterans.ObjectiveThe study aimed to understand barriers to medication access from the perspective of legally involved veterans with opioid use disorder and people who work with these veterans in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the legal system.DesignThis national qualitative study interviewed veterans and stakeholders from 14 geographically diverse VHA facilities to explore perceptions of barriers to medications for opioid use disorder.ParticipantsParticipants included veterans with a history of opioid use disorder and legal involvement (n = 18), VHA Veterans Justice Programs Specialists (n = 15), VHA and community substance use disorder treatment providers (n = 5), and criminal justice staff (n = 12).ApproachWe conducted interviews based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a team-based approach.Key resultsFour key barriers, noted by group, were identified: (1) a preference for counseling along with or instead of medications (veterans, Specialists, treatment providers, criminal justice staff); (2) concerns about veterans using medications without a prescription, selling them, or providing them to others (veterans, Specialists, treatment providers, criminal justice staff); (3) concerns about perceived stigma towards medication use (veterans, Specialists, treatment providers, criminal justice staff); and (4) concerns about medication discontinuation after recurrent opioid use (veterans, criminal justice staff). A fifth theme, education, was noted by all stakeholders except providers as important to facilitating use of medications for opioid use disorder. All five themes mapped to the framework construct of knowledge and beliefs about the intervention.ConclusionsBased on identified barriers, interventions focused on enhancing medication knowledge, reducing stigma towards use of medications, and increasing knowledge that opioid use may recur during treatment may help increase access to medication for veterans with legal involvement.

Project description:Practice facilitation has been associated with meaningful improvements in disease prevention and quality of patient care. Using practice facilitation, the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project aimed to improve the delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular care in primary care practices across a large health region. Our goal was to evaluate IDOCC's impact on adherence to processes of care delivery.A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting primary care providers in practices located in Eastern Ontario, Canada (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808). Participants were randomly assigned by region to one of three steps. Practice facilitators were intended to visit practices every 3-4 (year 1-intensive) or 6-12 weeks (year 2-sustainability) to support changes in practice behavior. The primary outcome was mean adherence to indicators of evidence-based care measured at the patient level. Adherence was assessed by chart review of a randomly selected cohort of 66 patients per practice in each pre-intervention year, as well as in year 1 and year 2 post-intervention.Eighty-four practices (182 physicians) participated. On average, facilitators had 6.6 (min: 2, max: 11) face-to-face visits with practices in year 1 and 2.5 (min: 0 max: 10) visits in year 2. We collected chart data from 5292 patients. After adjustment for patient and provider characteristics, there was a 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): -2.9 to -0.9 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI: -5.7 to -2.6 %) absolute decrease in mean adherence from baseline to intensive and sustainability years, respectively.IDOCC did not improve adherence to best-practice guidelines. Our results showed a small statistically significant decrease in mean adherence of questionable clinical significance. Potential reasons for this result include implementation challenges, competing priorities in practices, a broad focus on multiple chronic disease indicators, and use of an overall index of adherence. These results contrast with findings from previously reported facilitation trials and highlight the complexities and challenges of translating research findings into clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808.

Project description:BackgroundDentists and oral surgeons are leading prescribers of opioids to adolescents and young adults (AYA), who are at high risk for developing problematic opioid use after an initial exposure. Most opioids are prescribed after tooth extraction, but non-opioid analgesics provide similar analgesia and are recommended by multiple professional organizations.MethodsThis multi-site stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial will assess whether a multicomponent behavioral intervention can influence opioid prescribing behavior among dentists and oral surgeons compared to usual practice. Across up to 12 clinical practices (clusters), up to 33 dentists/oral surgeons (provider participants) who perform tooth extractions for individuals 12-25 years old will be enrolled. After enrollment, all provider participants will receive the intervention at a time based on the sequence to which their cluster is randomized. The intervention consists of prescriber education via academic detailing plus provision of standardized patient post-extraction instructions and blister packs of acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Provider participants will dispense the blister packs and distribute the patient instructions at their discretion to AYA undergoing tooth extraction, with or without additional analgesics. The primary outcome is a binary, patient-level indicator of electronic post-extraction opioid prescription. Data for the primary outcome will be collected from the provider participant's electronic health records quarterly throughout the study. Provider participants will complete a survey before and approximately 3 months after transitioning into the intervention condition to assess implementation outcomes. AYA patients undergoing tooth extraction will be offered a survey to assess pain control and satisfaction with pain management in the week after their extraction. Primary analyses will use generalized estimating equations to compare the binary patient-level indicator of being prescribed a post-extraction opioid in the intervention condition compared to usual practice. Secondary analyses will assess provider participants' perceptions of feasibility and appropriateness of the intervention, and patient-reported pain control and satisfaction with pain management. Analyses will adjust for patient-level factors (e.g., sex, number of teeth extracted, etc.).DiscussionThis real-world study will address an important need, providing information on the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention at modifying dental prescribing behavior and reducing opioid prescriptions to AYA.ClinicaltrialsGOV: NCT06275191.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Systematic implementation of guidelines for opioid therapy management in chronic non-cancer pain can reduce opioid-related harms. However, implementation of guideline-recommended practices in routine care is subpar. The goal of this quality improvement (QI) project is to assess whether a clinic-tailored QI intervention improves the implementation of a health system-wide, guideline-driven policy on opioid prescribing in primary care. This manuscript describes the protocol for this QI project. METHODS:A health system with 28 primary care clinics caring for approximately 294,000 primary care patients developed and implemented a guideline-driven policy on long-term opioid therapy in adults with opioid-treated chronic non-cancer pain (estimated N?=?3980). The policy provided multiple recommendations, including the universal use of treatment agreements, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse risk screening, and standardized documentation of the chronic pain diagnosis and treatment plan. The project team drew upon existing guidelines, feedback from end-users, experts and health system leadership to develop a robust QI intervention, targeting clinic-level implementation of policy-directed practices. The resulting multi-pronged QI intervention included clinic-wide and individual clinician-level educational interventions. The QI intervention will augment the health system's "routine rollout" method, consisting of a single educational presentation to clinicians in group settings and a separate presentation for staff. A stepped-wedge design will enable 9 primary care clinics to receive the intervention and assessment of within-clinic and between-clinic changes in adherence to the policy items measured by clinic-level electronic health record-based measures and process measures of the experience with the intervention. DISCUSSION:Developing methods for a health system-tailored QI intervention required a multi-step process to incorporate end-user feedback and account for the needs of targeted clinic team members. Delivery of such tailored QI interventions has the potential to enhance uptake of opioid therapy management policies in primary care. Results from this study are anticipated to elucidate the relative value of such QI activities.

Project description:IntroductionThere is an epidemic of opioid use related to adverse events and deaths in the USA. The rates of chronic pain, mental illness and substance use disorder are higher at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) compared with the general US population. The 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act requires the VHA to improve opioid therapy strategies in treating patients and to ensure responsible prescribing practices. The Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) is a web-based dashboard that prioritises review of VHA patients receiving opioids based on their risk. The VHA Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center is coordinating a multiyear evaluation of STORM and aspects of the VHA policy that mandate case review of patients identified by STORM as very high risk.Methods and analysisThis stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will test two hypotheses: (1) VHA medical centres randomised to facilitation for not meeting the targeted case review rate will achieve lower opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs), relative to facilities not randomised to facilitation and (2) Patients whose cases are required to be reviewed will have a lower rate of opioid-related SAEs compared with comparable risk patients whose cases are not required to be reviewed. Patients who receive an opioid prescription at VHA medical centres will be followed for a minimum of 3 months after their first opioid prescription. Follow-up will continue until the last day of the project or death. The data will be analysed using an intention-to-treat approach with patient-month-level Cox proportional hazards models for both interventions.Ethics and disseminationEvaluation of the randomised roll-out was approved by the VA Boston Healthcare System Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Research & Development Committees (Protocol # 3069). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national conference meetings.Trial registration numberISRCTN16012111.

Project description:BackgroundStepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date.MethodsComprehensive literature review of studies or protocols using a stepped wedge design. Data were extracted from the studies in three categories for subsequent consideration: study information (epidemiology, intervention, number of participants), reasons for using a stepped wedge design and methods of data analysis.ResultsThe 12 studies included in this review describe evaluations of a wide range of interventions, across different diseases in different settings. However the stepped wedge design appears to have found a niche for evaluating interventions in developing countries, specifically those concerned with HIV. There were few consistent motivations for employing a stepped wedge design or methods of data analysis across studies. The methodological descriptions of stepped wedge studies, including methods of randomisation, sample size calculations and methods of analysis, are not always complete.ConclusionWhile the stepped wedge design offers a number of opportunities for use in future evaluations, a more consistent approach to reporting and data analysis is required.

Dataset Information

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of a novel opioid court to improve identification of need and linkage to medications for opioid use disorder treatment for court-involved adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets