The Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care II (SAT2HIV-II) Project
- Conditions
- Substance Use
- Interventions
- Behavioral: The facilitation, training, feedback, consultation, and pay-for-performance (FTFC+PFP) StrategyBehavioral: The facilitation, training, feedback, and consultation (FTFC) Strategy
- Registration Number
- NCT04687917
- Lead Sponsor
- Ohio State University
- Brief Summary
An experiment to test the effectiveness of providing monetary bonuses to staff for achieving pre-defined performance targets regarding the implementation of a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention for substance use.
- Detailed Description
A cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial with HIV service organizations across the United States. The primary aims is to test the effectiveness of an innovative pay-for-performance (P4P) strategy for improving the implementation of a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention for substance use.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 428
-
Inclusion criteria for staff participants:
- 18+ years of age
Inclusion criteria for client participants:
- 18+ years of age
- Diagnosed with HIV
-
Exclusion criteria for staff participants:
- None
Exclusion criteria for client participants:
* None
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Training, Feedback, Consultation, Facilitation, and P4P The facilitation, training, feedback, consultation, and pay-for-performance (FTFC+PFP) Strategy An enhanced version of the multilevel implementation strategy Training, Feedback, Consultation, and Facilitation The facilitation, training, feedback, and consultation (FTFC) Strategy A multilevel implementation strategy
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Staff-level Implementation Consistency Assessed at the end of month 12 The cumulative number of brief interventions that each HSO staff participant implemented with HSO client participants during the implementation phase.
Staff-level Implementation Quality Assessed at the end of month 12 The cumulative sum quality score that each HSO staff participant demonstrated during the implementation phase. Each motivational interviewing brief intervention (MIBI) is rated on a scale from 0 (zero quality) to 12 (highest quality possible). Each individual MIBI quality score is summed to create a cumulative sum quality score. Higher scores indicated higher quality (i.e. motivational interviewing fidelity). The lower limit is zero. There is not an upper limit.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Staff-level Average Change (Follow-up Minus Baseline) in Their Client Participant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) Score Assessed at 4-weeks from the baseline assessment A staff-level measure of the average change (follow-up minus baseline) in their client participant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale score. The GAD-7 ranges from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater generalized anxiety. For change in the GAD-7 between baseline and follow-up (follow-up minus baseline), scores range from -20 to 20 and negative numbers are better as they indicate decreasing generalized anxiety. For this study, we examined the average GAD-7 change score that the HSO staff had with their client participants.
Staff-level Average Change (Follow-up Minus Baseline) in Their Client Participant's Days Using Primary Substance Assessed at 4-weeks from the baseline assessment A staff-level measure representing the average level of client participant change (follow-up minus baseline) in the number of days clients used their primary substance (i.e., the substance the client identified a willingness to talk about during the MIBI) during the past 28 day
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
The Ohio State University
🇺🇸Columbus, Ohio, United States