Browsing by Author "Bray, Bethany C."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Barriers impacting the POINT pragmatic trial: the unavoidable overlap between research and intervention procedures in “real-world” research
    (BMC, 2021-02-04) Dir, Allyson L.; Watson, Dennis P.; Zhiss, Matthew; Taylor, Lisa; Bray, Bethany C.; McGuire, Alan; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Background: This manuscript provides a research update to the ongoing pragmatic trial of Project POINT (Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment), an emergency department-based peer recovery coaching intervention for linking patients with opioid use disorder to evidence-based treatment. The research team has encountered a number of challenges related to the "real-world" study setting since the trial began. Using an implementation science lens, we sought to identify and describe barriers impacting both the intervention and research protocols of the POINT study, which are often intertwined in pragmatic trials due to the focus on external validity. Method: Qualitative data were collected from 3 peer recovery coaches, 2 peer recovery coach supervisors, and 3 members of the research team. Questions and deductive qualitative analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Nine unique barriers were noted, with 5 of these barriers impacting intervention and research protocol implementation simultaneously. These simultaneous barriers were timing of intervention delivery, ineffective communication with emergency department staff, lack of privacy in the emergency department, the fast-paced emergency department setting, and patient's limited resources. Together, these barriers represent the intervention characteristics, inner setting, and outer setting domains of the CFIR. Conclusion: Results highlight the utility of employing an implementation science framework to assess implementation issues in pragmatic trials and how this approach might be used as a quality assurance mechanism given the considerable overlap that exists between research and intervention protocols in real-world trial settings. Previously undocumented changes to the trial design that have been made as a result of the identified barriers are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Patterns of opioid use behaviors among patients seen in the emergency department: Latent class analysis of baseline data from the POINT pragmatic trial
    (Elsevier, 2023) Bray, Bethany C.; Watson, Dennis P.; Salisbury-Afshar, Elizabeth; Taylor, Lisa; McGuire, Alan; Psychology, School of Science
    Introduction: The nation's overdose epidemic has been characterized by increasingly potent opioids resulting in more emergency department (ED) encounters over time. ED-based opioid use interventions are growing in popularity; however, they tend to treat people who use opioids as a homogenous population. The current study sought to understand heterogeneity among people who use opioids who encounter the ED by identifying qualitatively different subgroups among participants in an opioid use intervention clinical trial at baseline and examining associations between subgroup membership and multiple correlates. Methods: Participants were from a larger pragmatic clinical trial of the Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment (POINT) intervention (n = 212; 59.2 % male, 85.3 % Non-Hispanic White, mean age = 36.6 years). The study employed latent class analysis (LCA) using five indicators of opioid use behavior: preference for opioids, preference for stimulants, usually use drugs alone, injection drug use, and opioid-related problem at ED encounter. Correlates of interest included participants' demographics, prescription histories, health care contact histories, and recovery capital (e.g., social support, naloxone knowledge). Results: The study identified three classes: (1) noninjecting opioid preferers, (2) injecting opioid and stimulant preferers, and (3) social nonopioid preferers. We identified limited significant differences in correlates across the classes: differences existed for select demographics, prescription histories, and recovery capital but not for health care contact histories. For example, members of Class 1 were the most likely to be a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, oldest on average, and most likely to have received a benzodiazepine prescription, whereas members of Class 2 had the highest average barriers to treatment and members of Class 3 were the least likely to have been diagnosed with a major mental health illness and had the lowest average barriers to treatment. Conclusions: LCA identified distinct subgroups among POINT trial participants. Knowledge of such subgroups assists with the development of better-targeted interventions and can help staff to identify the most appropriate treatment and recovery pathways for patients.