1 / 20

CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA.

Medication-Assisted Treatment Implementation in Community Correctional Environments (MATICCE). CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 2. Why Focus on Interorganizational Linkages to MAT?.

adanne
Download Presentation

CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Medication-Assisted Treatment Implementation in Community Correctional Environments (MATICCE) CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA.

  2. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 2 Why Focus on Interorganizational Linkages to MAT? • Medication Assisted Therapy (MAT) refers adding meds to counseling to ↓ withdrawal, craving & reinforcing euphoria. • MAT Planning Survey • RCs surveyed all potential CJ partner sites (N=50) • Parole/Probation sites • lowest current use of MAT • most potential for initiating/expanding MAT • Barriers could be addressed in an implementation design • CC defers responsibility to comm.providers but weak referral relationshps • Lack of knowledge about effectiveness • Philosophical opposition to MAT • MAT access could be increased for Community Corrections (CC) clients by addressing staff knowledge/attitudes and interorganizational linkages

  3. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 3 Specific Aims • Aim 1: Improve service coordination between CC agencies and local MAT-providing tx agencies. • Aim 2: Improve CC agents’ knowledge, attitudes, information about referral resources and intent to refer appropriate clients to community-based MAT. • Aim 3: Increase the number of CC clients linked with MAT. • Aims will be accomplished by testing: • a staff-level Knowledge, Attitude, and Information (KAI) training intervention; and • an interorganizational linkage intervention.

  4. Two-Part Implementation Strategy: Part 1 Knowledge, attitudes & information (KAI) intervention Training of CC staff and selected staff from assessment & treatment agencies to address: lack of knowledge about effectiveness philosophical preference for abstinence-based treatment Information and understanding about local MAT resources Delivered by regional Addiction Technology Transfer Centers (ATTCs) based on NIDA/CSAT Blending Initiative materials

  5. KAI Outline • Address CC perspectives on MAT through open discussion • Basics of brain functioning in relation to MAT with features of special interest to those in criminal justice professions • Medications used to treat alcoholism, evidence about effectiveness and side effects • Medications used to treat opiates, evidence about effectiveness and side effects • Examples of typical CC clients who could benefit from MAT • Reasons that those under CC supervision with addiction histories might be good candidates for MAT • Rapid re-addiction after release, opiate overdose, alcohol and violent crime

  6. KAI Outline, cont’d • Advantages that MAT might offer the criminal justice system • evidence-based practice • reduced numbers of addicts going through repeated arrest-incarceration-release cycles would likely result in decreased in crime associated with addiction and in lower public safety costs • formal linkages with medication-assisted treatment agencies could simplify supervision and lower parole/probation supervision costs • How to decide if someone is a good candidate for referral to MAT • Types of agencies where MAT is typically offered

  7. Two-Part Implementation Strategy: Part 2 • Interorganizational linkage intervention modeled after CMHS ACCESS • Incorporates 3 parts of ACCESS intervention considered most effective • Pharmacotherapy Exchange Councils (PEC) • Representatives from relevant local agencies • Co-chaired by directors of CC and local MAT providers (or designees) • Charged to address linkage to MAT-enabled providers

  8. Sample PEC Membership

  9. Two-Part Implementation Strategy: Part II • Interorganizational linkage intervention (cont’d) • Strategic Planning by PEC • Facilitated by local RC investigators • Not top-down “command and control” process • Acknowledge complexity of system • Minimum specifications, direction-pointing, attractors • “Connections Coordinator” Position • Likely within CC agency • 5 hrs per wk during 11 month linkage intervention period • Compensate agency with $5000 educational travel fund • Coordinate PEC activities; liaison, foster compromise, consensus among agencies. • Operationalize PEC strategic plan

  10. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 10 Sites • Intervention based in community corrections (i.e., probation/parole) • Each CC office would identify at least one local addiction pharmacotherapy-providing treatment agency to which client referrals can be made • opioid treatment programs providing methadone or buprenorphine • outpatient programs providing bup or naltrexone for opioid dep. or naltrexone, acamprosate or disulfiram for alcohol dependence • Each RC would contribute at least 2 CJ sites to the protocol, preferably in distinct geographic catchment areas • Catchment area distinction helps avoid contamination (especially of tx providers) in the delayed implementation group

  11. Study Design PHASE 1 Pre-Intervention Pilot Phase Test chart data collection procedures May-Jul 2010 (3 mo) Baseline Data Collection (all sites) Aug –Dec 2010 (4 mo) PHASE 2 Knowledge, Attitude, Information (KAI) Intervention (all sites) Jan –Feb ‘11 (2 mo) RANDOMIZATION Group 1 Linkage Intervention PEC Strategic Planning Connection Coordinator Group 2 No Linkage Intervention (KAI only ) PHASE 3 Feb ‘11-Dec ‘12 (12 mo) Jan-’Feb12 (2 mo) End-of-Phase 3 Data Collection (all sites) Jun-Jul 2013 (2 mo) 6-Month Follow-up Data Collection (all sites) Analysis Phase If linkage intervention is effective, offer materials and training to Group 2 After Jul 2012

  12. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 12 Hypothesis 1 • CC units in the KAI+Linkage intervention will have greater  relative to baseline in interorganizational tx svc coordination than those with KAI alone. • Relates to Aim 1 (improve service coordination) • Compares Groups 1 (KAI+Linkage) & 2 (KAI) at end of Phase 3 • Outcomes • Services Coordination Scale (Fletcher., 2009) • ACCESS measures (e.g., Morrissey et al., 2002) • Organizational Assessment Instrument (Van de Ven, 1980) • Data sources • Semi-structured interviews & CC staff surveys at baseline & end of Phase 3

  13. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 13 Hypothesis 2 • After the KAI training, CC officers will have  knowledge/attitudes re: evidence for MAT, use in treatment, and where to refer clients • Relates to Aim 2 (staff knowledge & intent) • Compares staff baseline-post KAI training in both groups • Outcomes • CTN items (Fitzgerald & McCarty, 2009); Attitudes toward Medications19-item scale (Springer & Bruce, 2008); Gjersing et al. 2007; able to name two local MAT providers • Data sources • CC staff surveys at baseline and after KAI training

  14. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 14 Hypothesis 3 • Staff in KAI + Linkage group will have greater  in intent to refer clients to MAT vs KAI alone • Relates to Aim 2 (staff knowledge & intent to refer) • Compares Group 1 vs. Group 2 staff baseline-post Phase 3. • Outcomes • Intent to refer on Likert-type scales (Varra et al., 2008) • Data sources • CC staff surveys at baseline & end of Phase 3

  15. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 15 Hypothesis 4 • ’d interorganizational tx service coordination and staff knowledge / attitudes / referral practices will be sustained 6 months after intervention period. • Relates to Aim 1 (service coordination) • Compares Group 1 vs. Group 2 across all data collection periods • Outcomes • Interorganizational coordination measures per H1 • KAI and intent to refer scales per H2, H3 • Data sources • CC staff surveys, semi-structured interviews at baseline, end of Phase 3 & 6-months later

  16. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 16 Hypothesis 5 • CC units in KAI+Linkage group will have a greater  over baseline in % opioid/alcohol-using clients referred to MAT assessment than KAI only group. • Relates to Aim 3 (increase client linkages) • Compares Group 1 vs. Group 2 across all data collection periods • Outcomes • % opioid-/alcohol- using clients referred for assessment for MAT • Data sources (see: Agency Records Slide) • CC records for 6 mos prior to baseline, last 6 months of Phase 3, and 6 months after Phase 3* • Monthly CC officer survey for month prior to baseline, last 6 months of Phase 3, and 6 months after Phase 3, reporting: • # opioid/alcohol-using clients • # clients referred for MAT assessment

  17. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 17 Hypothesis 6 • CC units in KAI + Linkage group will have a greater  over baseline in clients assessed by a tx provider for MAT and who initiate MAT, vs. KAI only group • Relates to Aim 3 (increase client linkages) • Compares Group 1 vs. Group 2 staff baseline-Phase 3 • Outcomes • # completed CJ referrals for assessment, MAT initiates, person-days on MAT • Data sources (see: Agency Records Slide) • Records abstract or report from substance abuse assessment provider and main MAT program for 6 mos prior to baseline & last 6 mos of Phase 3*

  18. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 18 Hypothesis 7 • CC units in KAI+Linkage group will have a larger  relative to baseline in opioid/alcohol-using clients rearrested, re-incarcerated, & testing positive for substance use relative to KAI only group. • Relates to Aim 3 (increase client linkages) • Compares Group 1 vs. Group 2 staff baseline-Phase 3. • Outcomes: Of “potentially MAT appropriate” CC clients i • % arrested, reincarcerated, testing positive for drugs • Data sources (see: Agency Records Slide) • Records abstract or report from CC, CJ and drug-testing program for 6 mos prior to baseline, last 6 mos of Phase 3, & 6 mos after Phase 3.

  19. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 19 Challenges and Limitations • Site cannot accept randomization assignment • MATICCE EC will recommend action, incl replacement if necessary. • Protocol deviations • Change in staff or level of cooperation • Retraining • Analyses by intent to treat • Client Information – need decision on options • Waiver • IRB variability • Unclear whether treatment programs will honor waiver • Can still examine primary outcomes from CJ and survey data • Extent, validity of record documentation – to be determined from pilot • Possible detection bias based on Group (hard to blind RAs) • Self-report data • Limited information on psychometrics of such reports • Social desirability / Hawthorne effects

  20. CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with SAMHSA and BJA. 20 Summary • MAT access could be increased for CC clients by addressing staff knowledge/attitudes and interorganizational linkages • MATICCE -- multi-site, cluster randomized study over 28 months • Compares KAI training alone versus KAI training plus active linkage intervention • Interorganizational Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council (PEC) • Facilitated strategic planning • Connections coordinator position • Addresses implementation science (interorg. relationships; sustainability); HSR (structural influences on access, referral, and utilization) & practical concerns of CJ agencies (facilitating interagency referrals; reducing relapse & arrest).

More Related