Testing the incremental effectiveness of pay-for-performance to improve implementation of a motivational interviewing brief intervention for substance use disorders in HIV settings: Results of a parallel cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) have a serious adverse impact on the physical and mental well-being of people with HIV. Previously, using a 39-site dual-randomized type 2 hybrid trial design, findings from the Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care Project supported the Implementation and Sustainment Facilitation (ISF) strategy to improve implementation and effectiveness of a motivational interviewing brief intervention (MIBI) for SUD within HIV service settings across the United States (US). Building on this trial, this parallel cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid trial aimed to test the incremental effectiveness of a pay-for-performance (P4P), a form of the “alter incentive/allowance structures” strategy. Methods: Twenty-six HIV service organizations, their staff participants (N=87), and their client participants (N=341) were cluster-randomized to one of two implementation conditions. The control condition included staff-focused training, feedback, and consultation (TFC) and team-focused implementation and sustainment (ISF). The experimental condition included TFC+ISF as well as P4P (TFC+ISF+P4P). P4P used financial incentives to reward MIBI implementation (US$10 per MIBI delivered) and MIBI implementation at or above a pre-defined level of quality (US$10 per demonstration). In addition to these outcomes, past 4-week changes/reductions in client participant’s days of primary substance use and anxiety symptoms were examined. Results: The addition of P4P had a large and significant effect on the number of MIBIs implemented ( d =1.30, p<.05) and reduction in anxiety ( d= -1.54), but there was no impact on days of substance use. P4P had large effects on MIBI quality ( d =1.24) and MIBI implementation effectiveness ( d =1.28), but these were not significant ( p <.10). Conclusions: P4P is a form of the “alter incentive/allowance structures” strategy. Its function is to reward the implementation of a clinical innovation. Rewarding implementation is consistent with the theory of implementation effectiveness, which suggests implementation climate (i.e., the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded) is a key antecedent of implementation effectiveness (i.e., the consistency and quality of implementation). We found that P4P had a significant, positive impact on MIBI implementation in HIV service settings, but client-level outcomes were mixed. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the P4P strategy to improve implementation and sustainment of other evidence-based innovations. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04687917. Registered 12/18/2020.

Article activity feed