Research square · 2023
Testing the incremental effectiveness of pay-for-performance to improve implementation of a motivational interviewing brief intervention for substance use disorders in HIV settings: Results of a cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial.
СтатьяПрепринтНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garner Bryan R, Tueller Stephen, Bradshaw Michael, Speck Kathryn, Satre Derek, Rash Carla, Donohoe Tom, Mungo Jackie, Philbrick Sarah, Ruwala Richa, Roosa Mathew, Zehner Mark, Ford James
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) have a serious adverse impact on people living with HIV. Previously, using a 39-site dual-randomized type 2 hybrid trial design, findings from the Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care Project supported the Implementation and Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) strategy to improve implementation and effectiveness of a motivational interviewing brief intervention (MIBI) for SUD within HIV service settings across the United States (US). Building on this trial, this cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial aimed to test the incremental effectiveness of a pay-for-performance (P4P), a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy.
METHODS: Twenty-six HIV service organizations, their staff participants (N=87), and their client participants (N=341) were cluster-randomized to one of two implementation conditions. The control condition included staff-focused training, feedback, and consultation (TFC) and team-focused implementation and sustainment (ISF). The experimental condition included TFC+ISF as well as P4P (TFC+ISF+P4P). P4P used financial incentives to reward MIBI implementation (US$10 per MIBI delivered) and MIBI implementation at or above a pre-defined level of quality (US$10 per demonstration). In addition to these outcomes, past 4-week changes/reductions in client participant's days of primary substance use and anxiety symptoms were examined.
RESULTS: The addition of P4P had a large and significant effect on the number of MIBIs implemented (d=1.30, p<.05) and reduction in anxiety (d=-1.54), but there was no impact on days of substance use. P4P had large effects on MIBI quality (d=1.24) and MIBI implementation effectiveness (d=1.28), but these were not significant (p<.10).
CONCLUSIONS: P4P is a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy Its function is to reward the implementation of a clinical innovation. Rewarding implementation is consistent with the theory of implementation effectiveness, which suggests implementation climate (i.e., the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded) is a key antecedent of implementation effectiveness (i.e., the consistency and quality of implementation). We found that P4P had a significant, positive impact on MIBI implementation in HIV service settings, but client-level outcomes were mixed. Future research should examine the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, as well as to examine the effectiveness of P4P to improve the implementation of other evidence-based innovations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04687917. Registered 12/18/2020.
METHODS: Twenty-six HIV service organizations, their staff participants (N=87), and their client participants (N=341) were cluster-randomized to one of two implementation conditions. The control condition included staff-focused training, feedback, and consultation (TFC) and team-focused implementation and sustainment (ISF). The experimental condition included TFC+ISF as well as P4P (TFC+ISF+P4P). P4P used financial incentives to reward MIBI implementation (US$10 per MIBI delivered) and MIBI implementation at or above a pre-defined level of quality (US$10 per demonstration). In addition to these outcomes, past 4-week changes/reductions in client participant's days of primary substance use and anxiety symptoms were examined.
RESULTS: The addition of P4P had a large and significant effect on the number of MIBIs implemented (d=1.30, p<.05) and reduction in anxiety (d=-1.54), but there was no impact on days of substance use. P4P had large effects on MIBI quality (d=1.24) and MIBI implementation effectiveness (d=1.28), but these were not significant (p<.10).
CONCLUSIONS: P4P is a form of the "alter incentive/allowance structures" strategy Its function is to reward the implementation of a clinical innovation. Rewarding implementation is consistent with the theory of implementation effectiveness, which suggests implementation climate (i.e., the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded) is a key antecedent of implementation effectiveness (i.e., the consistency and quality of implementation). We found that P4P had a significant, positive impact on MIBI implementation in HIV service settings, but client-level outcomes were mixed. Future research should examine the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, as well as to examine the effectiveness of P4P to improve the implementation of other evidence-based innovations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04687917. Registered 12/18/2020.