Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
Published in: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Study Protocol

Finding harmony so the music plays on: pragmatic trial design considerations to promote organizational sustainment of an empirically-supported behavior therapy

Authors: Bryan Hartzler, K. Michelle Peavy, T. Ron Jackson, Molly Carney

Published in: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pragmatic trials of empirically-supported behavior therapies may inform clinical and policy decisions concerning therapy sustainment. This retrospective trial design paper describes and discusses pragmatic features of a hybrid type III implementation/effectiveness trial of a contingency management (CM) intervention at an opioid treatment program. Prior reporting (Hartzler et al., J Subst Abuse Treat 46:429–438, 2014; Hartzler, Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 10:30, 2015) notes success in recruiting program staff for voluntary participation, durable impacts of CM training on staff-level outcomes, provisional setting implementation of the intervention, documentation of clinical effectiveness, and post-trial sustainment of CM.

Methods/design

Six pragmatic design features, and both scientific and practical bases for their inclusion in the trial, are presented: (1) a collaborative intervention design process, (2) voluntary recruitment of program staff for therapy training and implementation, (3) serial training outcome assessments, with quasi-experimental staff randomization to either single or multiple baseline assessment conditions, (4) designation of a 90-day period immediately after training in which the setting implemented the intervention on a provisional basis, (5) inclusive patient eligibility for receipt of the CM intervention, and (6) designation of two staff as local implementation leaders to oversee clinical/administrative issues in provisional implementation.

Discussion

Each pragmatic trial design feature is argued to have contributed to sustainment of CM. Contributions implicate the building of setting proprietorship for the CM intervention, culling of internal staff expertise in its delivery, iterative use of assessment methods that limited setting burden, documentation of setting-specific clinical effectiveness, expanded penetration of CM among staff during provisional implementation, and promotion of setting self-reliance in the oversight of sustainable implementation procedures. It is hoped this discussion offers ideas for how to impact local clinical and policy decisions via effective behavior therapy dissemination.
Literature
1.
National Institute on Health. NIH inventory of clinical trials: fiscal year 1979. Bethesda, MD: Division of research grants, Research analysis and evaluation branch; 1979.
2.
Chalmers TC, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2(1):31–49.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of clinical trials. New York, NY: Springer; 1998.CrossRef
4.
Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365:82–93.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Concato J, Shah N, Howitz RI. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
Ioannidis JP, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286(7):821–30.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attidutes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637–48.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision-making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–32.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Flay BR. Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med. 1986;15:451–74.CrossRefPubMed
14.
IOM. Bridging the gap between practice and research: Forging partnerships with community-based drug and alcohol treatment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1998.
15.
Wells KB. Treatment research at the crossroads: the scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:5–10.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1261–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
17.
Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ. Bridging the gap: a hybrid model to link efficacy and effectiveness research in substance abuse treatment. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54(3):333–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Curran GM, et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
19.
Lussier JP, et al. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006;101:192–203.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Prendergast M, et al. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2006;101:1546–60.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Peirce J, et al. Effects of lower-cost incentives on stimulant abstinence in methadone maintenance treatment: a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:201–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Petry NM, et al. Effect of prize-based incentives on outcomes in stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs: A national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:1148–56.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Roman PM, et al. A longitudinal study of organizational formation, innovation adoption, and dissemination activities within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(Supplement 1):S44–52.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hartzler B, Rabun C. Community treatment perspectives on contingency management: a mixed-method approach to examining feasibility, effectiveness, and transportability. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013;45(2):242–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Hartzler B, Rabun C. Community treatment adoption of contingency management: a conceptual profile of U.S. clinics based on innovativeness of executive staff. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24(4):333–41.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
Kirby KC, et al. Substance abuse treatment providers’ beliefs and objections regarding contingency management: implications for dissemination. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;85:19–27.CrossRefPubMed
28.
McGovern MP, et al. A survey of clinical practices and readiness to adopt evidence-based practicies: dissemination research in an addiction treatment system. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004;26:305–12.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hartzler B, et al. Disseminating contingency management: impacts of staff training and implementation at an opiate treatment program. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46:429–38.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
30.
Hartzler B. Building a bonfire that remains stoked: sustainment of a contingency management intervention through collaborative design. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015;10:30.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Kellogg SH, et al. Something of value: the introduction of contingency management interventions into the New York City Health and Hospital Addiction Treatment Service. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;28:57–65.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Squires DD, Gumbley SJ, Storti SA. Training substance abuse treatment organizations to adopt evidence-based practices: the Addiction Transfer Center of New England Science-to-Service Laboratory. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:293–301.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Petry NM. Contingency management for substance abuse treatment: a guide to implementing this evidence-based practice. New York: Routledge; 2012.
35.
Beidas RS, Kendell PC. Training therapists in evidence-based practice: a critical review from a systems-contextual perspective. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2010;17(1):1–31.CrossRef
36.
Herschell AD, et al. The role of therapist training in the implementation of psychosocial treatments: a review and critique with recommendations. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30:448–66.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
37.
Imel ZE, et al. Evaluating therapist competence in motivational interviewing by comparing performance with standardized and real patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;82(3):472–81.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
38.
Hartzler B. Adapting the helpful responses questionnaire to assess communication skills involved in delivering contingency management: preliminary psychometrics. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;55:52–7.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Petry NM, Stitzer ML. Contingency management: Using motivational incentives to improve drug abuse treatment. In: Training series, #6, Y.U.P.D. Center, editor. West Haven, CT: Yale University; 2002.
40.
Henggeler SW, et al. Statewide adoption and initial implementation of contingency management for substance-abusing adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76:556–67.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Petry NM, Ledgerwood DM. The Contingency Management Competence Scale for reinforcing attendance. Farmington, CT: University of Connecticut Health Center; 2010.
43.
Hartzler B, Lash SJ, Roll JM. Contingency management in substance abuse treatment: a structured review of the evidence for its transportability. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;122(1–2):1–10.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
44.
Higgins ST, et al. Achieving cocaine abstinence with a behavioral approach. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(5):763–9.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Petry NM, et al. Give them prizes, and they will come: contingency management for treatment of alcohol dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:250–7.CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
Benishek LA, et al. Beliefs about the empirical support of drug abuse treatment interventions: a survey of outpatient treatment providers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;107:202–8.CrossRefPubMed
48.
McCarty DJ, et al. Direct care workers in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: characteristics, opinions, and beliefs. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(2):181–90.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
51.
Gawlinski A. The power of clinical nursing research: engage clinicans, improve patients’ lives, and forge a professional legacy. Am J Crit Care. 2008;17:315–26.PubMed
52.
Hartzler B, Rabun C. Training addiction professionals in empirically-supported treatments: perspectives from the treatment community. Subst Abuse. 2014;35(1):30–6.CrossRef
53.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, vol. 5. New York: The Free Press; 2003.
54.
Aletraris L, Shelton JS, Roman PM. Counselor attitudes toward contingency management for substance use disorder: effectiveness, acceptability, and endorsement of incentives for treatment attendance and abstinence. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;57:41–8.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Carroll KM. Constrained, confounded, and confused: why we really know so little about therapists in treatment outcome research. Addiction. 2001;96:203–6.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Ball SA, et al. Characteristics, beliefs, and practices of community clinicians trained to provide manual-guided therapy for substance users. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2002;23:309–18.CrossRefPubMed
58.
McGovern MP, et al. Addiction treatment services and co-occurring disorders: prevalence estimates, treatment practices, and barriers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;31:267–75.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45:237–43.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Carroll KM, et al. Internal validity of project MATCH treatments: discriminability and integrity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66(2):290–303.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40:257–65.CrossRefPubMed
62.
63.
Jackson R. Need for site-specific evidence of therapy effectiveness: “but none of those studies were conducted here”. B. Hartzler, editor, personal communication. 2012.
64.
Hartzler B, Donovan DM, Huang Z. Comparison of opiate-primary treatment-seekers with and without alcohol use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;39(2):114–23.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
65.
66.
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, McCue Horwitz S. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv. 2011;38(1):4–23.CrossRef
67.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
68.
Baer JS, et al. An evaluation of workshop training in motivational interviewing for addiction and mental health clinicians. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;73(1):99–106.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Sholomskas DE, et al. We don’t train in vain: a dissemination trial of three strategies of training clinicians in cognitive-behavioral therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(1):106–15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
70.
Ledgerwood DM, et al. Contingency management for attendance to group substance abuse treatment administered by clinicians in community clinics. J Appl Behav Anal. 2008;41:517–26.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
71.
Petry NM, Alessi SM, Ledgerwood DM. A randomized trial of contingency management delivered by community therapists. J Consul Clin Psychol. 2012;80(2):286–98.CrossRef
72.
Petry NM, Alessi SM, Ledgerwood DM. Contingency management delivered by community therapists in outpatient settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;122(1–2):86–92.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
73.
Aarons GA, et al. Collaboration, negotiation, and coalescence for interagency-collaborative teams to scale-up evidence-based practice. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2014;43(6):915–28.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Finding harmony so the music plays on: pragmatic trial design considerations to promote organizational sustainment of an empirically-supported behavior therapy
Authors
Bryan Hartzler
K. Michelle Peavy
T. Ron Jackson
Molly Carney
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1940-0640
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-016-0049-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Drinking to toxicity: college students referred for emergency medical evaluation

Study Protocol

A computer-assisted motivational social network intervention to reduce alcohol, drug and HIV risk behaviors among Housing First residents

Study Protocol

Linking Infectious and Narcology Care (LINC) in Russia: design, intervention and implementation protocol

Review

Alcohol use in opioid agonist treatment

Study Protocol

Examining multi-session brief intervention for substance use in primary care: research methods of a randomized controlled trial

Research

Implementation of integrated stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use in HIV clinics