Frankie Kropp1,2, Christine Wilder1,2, Jeff Theobald1,2, Daniel Lewis1,2, T John Winhusen1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 2. Center for Addiction Research, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
Background: The use of peer interventionists may be helpful in addressing problems associated with substance use disorders. However, implementation issues such as training, supervision, and the impact of delivering the intervention on the interventionists themselves require additional examination. This report describes the training methods and peer interventionist outcomes in a pilot study of a single-session Peer Recovery Support Services (PRSS) telephone intervention to facilitate enrollment in medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a pilot study testing a PRSS intervention in adults using illicit opioids who reported a recent non-fatal opioid overdose (N = 80, with 40 PRSS participants). Candidates recruited from MOUD treatment programs were trained to deliver the PRSS intervention. Assessments of adverse events, global health, and peer satisfaction were used to evaluate the effects of serving as an interventionist. Fidelity and proportion of cases enrolling in MOUD were calculated for each interventionist. Results: Four consented candidates were trained to deliver the PRSS intervention to thirty-six study participants (90% PRSS arm). All interventionists successfully maintained fidelity to the PRSS intervention and reported no negative effects. Interventionists experienced differential success in encouraging treatment enrollment ranging from 16%-60% of their cases. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrates promise in utilizing peer interventionists to deliver a brief PRSS intervention with limited training and no reported negative effects on the interventionists themselves. Factors contributing to the differential success of the interventionists are unclear. Future research on the variable efficacy of peer interventionists is warranted to identify, quantify, and evaluate specific interactional elements associated with peer efficacy. Additionally, further evaluation of training, supervision practices, and the effects of serving as a PRSS interventionist, is needed. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT02922959.
Background: The use of peer interventionists may be helpful in addressing problems associated with substance use disorders. However, implementation issues such as training, supervision, and the impact of delivering the intervention on the interventionists themselves require additional examination. This report describes the training methods and peer interventionist outcomes in a pilot study of a single-session Peer Recovery Support Services (PRSS) telephone intervention to facilitate enrollment in medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a pilot study testing a PRSS intervention in adults using illicit opioids who reported a recent non-fatal opioid overdose (N = 80, with 40 PRSS participants). Candidates recruited from MOUD treatment programs were trained to deliver the PRSS intervention. Assessments of adverse events, global health, and peer satisfaction were used to evaluate the effects of serving as an interventionist. Fidelity and proportion of cases enrolling in MOUD were calculated for each interventionist. Results: Four consented candidates were trained to deliver the PRSS intervention to thirty-six study participants (90% PRSS arm). All interventionists successfully maintained fidelity to the PRSS intervention and reported no negative effects. Interventionists experienced differential success in encouraging treatment enrollment ranging from 16%-60% of their cases. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrates promise in utilizing peer interventionists to deliver a brief PRSS intervention with limited training and no reported negative effects on the interventionists themselves. Factors contributing to the differential success of the interventionists are unclear. Future research on the variable efficacy of peer interventionists is warranted to identify, quantify, and evaluate specific interactional elements associated with peer efficacy. Additionally, further evaluation of training, supervision practices, and the effects of serving as a PRSS interventionist, is needed. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT02922959.
Entities:
Keywords:
Peer interventions; medication for opioid use disorder; opioid overdose; peer recovery support services; training
Authors: K M Carroll; C Nich; R L Sifry; K F Nuro; T L Frankforter; S A Ball; L Fenton; B J Rounsaville Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2000-01-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Alan B McGuire; Kristen Gilmore Powell; Peter C Treitler; Karla D Wagner; Krysti P Smith; Nina Cooperman; Lisa Robinson; Jessica Carter; Bradley Ray; Dennis P Watson Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-06-19
Authors: Elizabeth J Santa Ana; Steve Martino; Samuel A Ball; Charla Nich; Tami L Frankforter; Kathleen M Carroll Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2008-03-12
Authors: Marc R Larochelle; Thomas J Stopka; Ziming Xuan; Jane M Liebschutz; Alexander Y Walley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 25.391