Shannon Gwin Mitchell1, Laura B Monico2, Maxine Stitzer3, Timothy Matheson4, James L Sorensen5, Daniel J Feaster6, Robert P Schwartz2, Lisa Metsch7. 1. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: smitchell@friendsresearch.org. 2. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. 3. Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21223, USA. 4. San Francisco Department of Public Health, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA. 5. Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, 1001 Potrero Avenue, SFGH Building 20, Rm. 2117, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA. 6. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA. 7. Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th St. 9th floor, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While patient navigation has been shown to be an effective approach for linking persons to HIV care, and contingency management is effective at improving substance use-related outcomes, Project HOPE combined these two interventions in a novel way to engage HIV-positive patients with HIV and substance use treatment. The aims of this paper are to examine patient navigator views regarding how contingency management interacted with and affected their navigation process. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 22 patient navigators from the original 10 Project HOPE study sites. MEASUREMENTS: Individual, semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 60 min addressed the patient navigator's professional background, descriptions of the participant population, substance use disorder versus HIV treatment entry and engagement issues, and the use of contingency management within the navigation service delivery protocol. FINDINGS: Patient navigators believed that financial incentives helped motivate participant attendance at navigation sessions, particularly early in study involvement, which helped them to establish rapport and develop relationships with participants. Patient navigators often noted that financial incentives positively influenced targeted HIV health-related behaviors, such as attending medical appointments, which provided a rapid pay-off with an escalating sum. Contingency management was more complex when used by the patient navigators for substance use-related behaviors, particularly when incentives revolved around negative urine screening. Patient navigators noted that not all participants responded the same way to the contingency management and that the incentives were particularly helpful when participants were financially strained with limited resources or when internal motivation was lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Overall patient navigators found the inclusion of contingency management to be helpful and affective at influencing participant behaviors, particularly concerning navigation session attendance and HIV healthcare-related participation. However, issues and concerns surrounding the inclusion of contingency management for drug-related behaviors as delivered in Project HOPE were noted. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01612169.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While patient navigation has been shown to be an effective approach for linking persons to HIV care, and contingency management is effective at improving substance use-related outcomes, Project HOPE combined these two interventions in a novel way to engage HIV-positivepatients with HIV and substance use treatment. The aims of this paper are to examine patient navigator views regarding how contingency management interacted with and affected their navigation process. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 22 patient navigators from the original 10 Project HOPE study sites. MEASUREMENTS: Individual, semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 60 min addressed the patient navigator's professional background, descriptions of the participant population, substance use disorder versus HIV treatment entry and engagement issues, and the use of contingency management within the navigation service delivery protocol. FINDINGS:Patient navigators believed that financial incentives helped motivate participant attendance at navigation sessions, particularly early in study involvement, which helped them to establish rapport and develop relationships with participants. Patient navigators often noted that financial incentives positively influenced targeted HIV health-related behaviors, such as attending medical appointments, which provided a rapid pay-off with an escalating sum. Contingency management was more complex when used by the patient navigators for substance use-related behaviors, particularly when incentives revolved around negative urine screening. Patient navigators noted that not all participants responded the same way to the contingency management and that the incentives were particularly helpful when participants were financially strained with limited resources or when internal motivation was lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Overall patient navigators found the inclusion of contingency management to be helpful and affective at influencing participant behaviors, particularly concerning navigation session attendance and HIV healthcare-related participation. However, issues and concerns surrounding the inclusion of contingency management for drug-related behaviors as delivered in Project HOPE were noted. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01612169.
Authors: Maxine L Stitzer; Alexis S Hammond; Tim Matheson; James L Sorensen; Daniel J Feaster; Rui Duan; Lauren Gooden; Carlos Del Rio; Lisa R Metsch Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Lytt I Gardner; Lisa R Metsch; Pamela Anderson-Mahoney; Anita M Loughlin; Carlos del Rio; Steffanie Strathdee; Stephanie L Sansom; Harvey A Siegal; Alan E Greenberg; Scott D Holmberg Journal: AIDS Date: 2005-03-04 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Jason A Craw; Lytt I Gardner; Gary Marks; Richard C Rapp; Jeff Bosshart; Wayne A Duffus; Amber Rossman; Susan L Coughlin; DeAnn Gruber; Lauretta A Safford; Jon Overton; Karla Schmitt Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Tim Weaver; Nicola Metrebian; Jennifer Hellier; Stephen Pilling; Vikki Charles; Nicholas Little; Dilkushi Poovendran; Luke Mitcheson; Frank Ryan; Owen Bowden-Jones; John Dunn; Anthony Glasper; Emily Finch; John Strang Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lytt I Gardner; Gary Marks; Steffanie A Strathdee; Anita M Loughlin; Carlos Del Rio; Peter Kerndt; Pamela Mahoney; Marc A Pitasi; Lisa R Metsch Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Maxine Stitzer; Tim Matheson; Colin Cunningham; James L Sorensen; Daniel J Feaster; Lauren Gooden; Alexis S Hammond; Heather Fitzsimons; Lisa R Metsch Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2017-06-27