Mary Brolin1, Maria Torres2, Dominic Hodgkin3, Constance Horgan3, Margaret Lee3, Elizabeth Merrick3, Grant Ritter3, Lee Panas3, Natasha DeMarco4, Jonna Hopwood4, Andrea Gewirtz4, John Straus4, Janice Harrington4, Nancy Lane5. 1. Institute for Behavioral Health, Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, MS 035, Waltham, MA 02453. Electronic address: brolin@brandeis.edu. 2. Smith College School for Social Work, 213 Lilly Hall, Northampton, MA 01063. 3. Institute for Behavioral Health, Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, MS 035, Waltham, MA 02453. 4. Massachusetts Behavioral Health Partnership, a Beacon Health Options company, 1000 Washington Street, Suite 310, Boston, MA 02118. 5. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Drive, Nashville, TN 37232.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multiple detoxification admissions among clients with substance use disorders (SUD) are costly to the health care system. This study explored the impact on behavior and cost outcomes of recovery support navigator (RSN) services delivered with and without a contingent incentive intervention. METHODS: New intakes at four detoxification programs were offered RSN-only (N=1116) or RSN plus incentive (RSN+I; N=1551) services. The study used a group-level cross-over design with the intervention in place at each clinic reversed halfway through the enrollment period. RSN+I clients could earn up to $240 in gift cards for accomplishing 12 different recovery-oriented target behaviors. All eligible clients entering the detoxification programs were included in the analyses, regardless of actual service use. RESULTS: Among RSN+I clients, 35.5% accessed any RSN services compared to 22.3% in the RSN-only group (p<.01). Of RSN+I clients, 19% earned one, 12% earned two and 18% earned three or more incentives; 51% did not earn any incentives. The majority of incentives earned were for meeting with the RSN either during or after detoxification. Adjusted average monthly health care costs among clients in the RSN-only and RSN+I groups increased at a similar rate over 12 months post-detoxification. DISCUSSION: Possible explanations for limited uptake of the incentive program discussed include features of the incentive program itself, navigator-client communication, organizational barriers and navigator bias. The findings provide lessons to consider for future design and implementation of multi-target contingency management interventions in real-world settings.
OBJECTIVE: Multiple detoxification admissions among clients with substance use disorders (SUD) are costly to the health care system. This study explored the impact on behavior and cost outcomes of recovery support navigator (RSN) services delivered with and without a contingent incentive intervention. METHODS: New intakes at four detoxification programs were offered RSN-only (N=1116) or RSN plus incentive (RSN+I; N=1551) services. The study used a group-level cross-over design with the intervention in place at each clinic reversed halfway through the enrollment period. RSN+I clients could earn up to $240 in gift cards for accomplishing 12 different recovery-oriented target behaviors. All eligible clients entering the detoxification programs were included in the analyses, regardless of actual service use. RESULTS: Among RSN+I clients, 35.5% accessed any RSN services compared to 22.3% in the RSN-only group (p<.01). Of RSN+I clients, 19% earned one, 12% earned two and 18% earned three or more incentives; 51% did not earn any incentives. The majority of incentives earned were for meeting with the RSN either during or after detoxification. Adjusted average monthly health care costs among clients in the RSN-only and RSN+I groups increased at a similar rate over 12 months post-detoxification. DISCUSSION: Possible explanations for limited uptake of the incentive program discussed include features of the incentive program itself, navigator-client communication, organizational barriers and navigator bias. The findings provide lessons to consider for future design and implementation of multi-target contingency management interventions in real-world settings.
Authors: Andrea Acevedo; Margaret T Lee; Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Grant A Ritter; Lee Panas; Kevin Campbell; Jason Bean-Mortinson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sharleen M Traynor; Lisa R Metsch; Lauren Gooden; Maxine Stitzer; Tim Matheson; Susan Tross; Adam W Carrico; Mamta K Jain; Carlos Del Rio; Daniel J Feaster Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Maria E Torres; Mary Brolin; Lee Panas; Grant Ritter; Dominic Hodgkin; Margaret Lee; Elizabeth Merrick; Constance Horgan; Jonna C Hopwood; Andrea Gewirtz; Natasha De Marco; Nancy Lane Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 2.655