The peers expanding engagement in stimulant harm reduction with contingency management study: a protocol paper

Abstract

Background: Contingency management (CM) that is delivered by peer recovery support specialists and incentivizes harm reduction goals among people not seeking treatment for stimulant use has not been tested. The Peers Expanding Engagement in Stimulant Harm Reduction with Contingency Management (PEER-CM) study compares the effectiveness of two peer-facilitated CM interventions: (1) an experimental approach incentivizing achievement of client-identified harm reduction goals and (2) an enhanced standard of care approach incentivizing peer visit attendance.

Methods: Applying a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation framework and stepped-wedge design across 14 community-based peer services sites across Oregon, the PEER-CM study trains peers to conduct CM. All sites implement the standard CM approach of incentivizing peer visit attendance. Every 2 months, two sites are randomly assigned to initiate the experimental CM condition of incentives for achieving client-directed harm reduction activities. Peers monitor progress and manage incentives. In the experimental approach, peers facilitate client progress on goal-related activities (selected from a standardized list of goals) to support the primary study outcome of reducing opioid overdoses and stimulant overamping. The intended study enrollment is approximately 80 clients per site (N = 1,120). Peer specialists participate in skills-focused coaching-to-criterion coaching process to document proficient CM delivery skills. This includes a series of group coaching sessions and an individual assessment with a standardized patient, observed and rated according to core dimensions of the Contingency Management Competence Scale.

Results: The primary study outcome is time until peer-reported fatal or first participant-reported non-fatal overdose or overamp (acute stimulant toxicity). Secondary outcomes include achievement of client-identified harm reduction goals and engagement in substance use disorder treatment. We will also demonstrate the feasibility of our coaching-to-criterion process by documenting peer proficiency in CM skills. Qualitative interviews with peers and their clients will explore the optimal context and implementation strategies for peer-facilitated CM.

Conclusion: PEER-CM is among the first trials to test the effectiveness of peer-facilitated CM for achieving harm reduction goals and reducing overdose in non-treatment-seeking people who use stimulants. The findings will generate evidence for peer-facilitated delivery of CM and application of CM to client-identified harm reduction goals.

Trial registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05700994).

Keywords: Contingency management; Implementation; Peer support; Stimulant use.