OBJECTIVES: People who inject drugs (PWID) are especially vulnerable to morbidity and mortality as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection because of social and physical health vulnerabilities. Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is critical to reduce transmission. Contingency management-the provision of tangible rewards to reinforce positive behavior-can promote the use of health services among PWID. Evidence is scarce on the utility of contingency management to promote SARS-CoV-2 testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of contingency management to increase testing among PWID. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 testing was implemented at 9 syringe exchange program sites in partnership with an Oregon-based nonprofit organization for 5 weeks without contingency management and for 6 weeks with contingency management (a $10 financial incentive for testing) from February 1 through mid-April 2021. We measured rates of testing among syringe exchange program clients before and after implementation of contingency management. RESULTS: Before contingency management, SARS-CoV-2 testing occurred during approximately 131 of 1410 (9.3%) client encounters, and 123 of 997 (12.3%) unique clients were tested. During contingency management, testing occurred during approximately 571 of 1756 (32.5%) client encounters, and 407 of 1151 (35.4%) unique clients were tested. Rates of testing increased from 0.04 (SD, 0.04) before contingency management implementation to 0.25 (SD, 0.15) after implementation (t8 = -3.88; P = .005; Cohen d = 1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management facilitated uptake of SARS-CoV-2 testing among PWID. Contingency management may be an effective strategy for improving communicable disease testing beyond testing for SARS-CoV-2 and for improving vaccine uptake among PWID and warrants additional research.
OBJECTIVES: People who inject drugs (PWID) are especially vulnerable to morbidity and mortality as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection because of social and physical health vulnerabilities. Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is critical to reduce transmission. Contingency management-the provision of tangible rewards to reinforce positive behavior-can promote the use of health services among PWID. Evidence is scarce on the utility of contingency management to promote SARS-CoV-2 testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of contingency management to increase testing among PWID. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 testing was implemented at 9 syringe exchange program sites in partnership with an Oregon-based nonprofit organization for 5 weeks without contingency management and for 6 weeks with contingency management (a $10 financial incentive for testing) from February 1 through mid-April 2021. We measured rates of testing among syringe exchange program clients before and after implementation of contingency management. RESULTS: Before contingency management, SARS-CoV-2 testing occurred during approximately 131 of 1410 (9.3%) client encounters, and 123 of 997 (12.3%) unique clients were tested. During contingency management, testing occurred during approximately 571 of 1756 (32.5%) client encounters, and 407 of 1151 (35.4%) unique clients were tested. Rates of testing increased from 0.04 (SD, 0.04) before contingency management implementation to 0.25 (SD, 0.15) after implementation (t8 = -3.88; P = .005; Cohen d = 1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Contingency management facilitated uptake of SARS-CoV-2 testing among PWID. Contingency management may be an effective strategy for improving communicable disease testing beyond testing for SARS-CoV-2 and for improving vaccine uptake among PWID and warrants additional research.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; contingency management; people who inject drugs; testing
Authors: Karen H Seal; Alex H Kral; Jennifer Lorvick; Alex McNees; Lauren Gee; Brian R Edlin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Carolyn A Day; Marian Shanahan; Handan Wand; Libby Topp; Paul S Haber; Craig Rodgers; Rachel Deacon; Nick Walsh; John Kaldor; Ingrid van Beek; Lisa Maher Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Libby Topp; Carolyn A Day; Handan Wand; Rachel M Deacon; Ingrid van Beek; Paul S Haber; Marian Shanahan; Craig Rodgers; Lisa Maher Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Augustine T Choko; Katherine Fielding; Cheryl C Johnson; Moses K Kumwenda; Richard Chilongosi; Rachel C Baggaley; Rose Nyirenda; Linda A Sande; Nicola Desmond; Karin Hatzold; Melissa Neuman; Elizabeth L Corbett Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Alicia Harvey-Vera; Sheryl Munoz; Irina Artamonova; Daniela Abramovitz; Maria Luisa Mittal; Cecilia Rosales; Steffanie A Strathdee; Maria Gudelia Rangel Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-09-06