Bryan R Garner, Susan H Godley, Michael L Dennis, Brooke D Hunter, Christin M L Bair, Mark D Godley
{"title":"Using pay for performance to improve treatment implementation for adolescent substance use disorders: results from a cluster randomized trial.","authors":"Bryan R Garner, Susan H Godley, Michael L Dennis, Brooke D Hunter, Christin M L Bair, Mark D Godley","doi":"10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To test whether pay for performance (P4P) is an effective method to improve adolescent substance use disorder treatment implementation and efficacy.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cluster randomized trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Community-based treatment organizations.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Twenty-nine community-based treatment organizations, 105 therapists, and 986 adolescent patients (953 with complete data).</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Community-based treatment organizations were assigned to 1 of the following conditions: the implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or the P4P experimental condition. In addition to delivering the same evidence-based treatment (ie, using the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]), each organization received standardized levels of funding, training, and coaching from the treatment developers. Therapists in the P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ie, A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions (ie, target A-CRA) that has been found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Outcomes included ACRA competence (ie, a therapist-level implementation measure), target A-CRA (ie, a patient-level implementation measure), and remission status (ie, a patient-level treatment effectiveness measure).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Relative to therapists in the IAU control condition, therapists in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to demonstrate A-CRA competence (24.0% vs 8.9%; event rate ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12- 4.48; P=.02). Relative to patients in the IAU control condition, patients in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to receive target A-CRA (17.3% vs 2.5%; odds ratio, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.53-17.62; P=.01). However, no significant differences were found between conditions with regard to patients' end-of-treatment remission status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pay for performance can be an effective method of improving treatment implementation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01016704</p>","PeriodicalId":8310,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine","volume":"166 10","pages":"938-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6746231/pdf/nihms-819649.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To test whether pay for performance (P4P) is an effective method to improve adolescent substance use disorder treatment implementation and efficacy.
Design: Cluster randomized trial.
Setting: Community-based treatment organizations.
Participants: Twenty-nine community-based treatment organizations, 105 therapists, and 986 adolescent patients (953 with complete data).
Intervention: Community-based treatment organizations were assigned to 1 of the following conditions: the implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or the P4P experimental condition. In addition to delivering the same evidence-based treatment (ie, using the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]), each organization received standardized levels of funding, training, and coaching from the treatment developers. Therapists in the P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ie, A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions (ie, target A-CRA) that has been found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes.
Main outcome measures: Outcomes included ACRA competence (ie, a therapist-level implementation measure), target A-CRA (ie, a patient-level implementation measure), and remission status (ie, a patient-level treatment effectiveness measure).
Results: Relative to therapists in the IAU control condition, therapists in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to demonstrate A-CRA competence (24.0% vs 8.9%; event rate ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12- 4.48; P=.02). Relative to patients in the IAU control condition, patients in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to receive target A-CRA (17.3% vs 2.5%; odds ratio, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.53-17.62; P=.01). However, no significant differences were found between conditions with regard to patients' end-of-treatment remission status.
Conclusion: Pay for performance can be an effective method of improving treatment implementation.