Preventing Substance Use Among Youth

Substance Abuse Clinical Trial

Official title:

Preventing Substance Use Among Youth: Behavioral and Economic Impact of Enhanced Implementation Strategies for Communities

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04752189
• Other study ID #: IRB-20-10-2821
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: August 4, 2021
• Est. completion date: July 14, 2022

Study information

• Verified date: July 2022
• Source: Wayne State University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Using a 2-group, mixed method group randomized trial design, this study will compare standard implementation versus Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (Enhanced REP) to deliver Michigan Model for Health (MMH) in Michigan high schools.

Description:

Background: Drug use remains a major public health problem among youth in the United States. Effective implementation of evidence-based interventions for youth is critical for reducing the burden of drug use and its consequences. The Michigan Model for Health (MMH) is an intervention that has demonstrated efficacy in reducing adolescent substance use. Yet, youth rarely receive evidence-based interventions (EBIs) as intended; this is, in part, due to a poor fit between the intervention and the context. The disconnect between the EBI and context is especially pronounced among underserved and vulnerable populations, including among youth exposed to trauma. Trauma is a potent risk factor for substance use, abuse, and the development of substance use disorders. Consequently, there is a critical need to design and test effective, cost-efficient implementation strategies to optimize the fidelity of school-based drug use prevention to better meet the needs of youth exposed to trauma. The objective of this study is to design and test a multi-component implementation strategy to improve intervention-context fit and enhance fidelity and effectiveness.

Methods: Using a 2-group, mixed method, randomized trial design, this study will compare standard implementation (Replicating Effective Programs [REP]) versus enhanced Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (Enhanced REP) to deliver MMH. REP is a previously established implementation strategy that promotes EBI fidelity through a combination of curriculum packaging, training, and as-needed technical assistance. Enhanced REP incorporates tailoring of the EBI package and training and deploys customized implementation support (i.e., implementation facilitation).

This research designs and tests an implementation strategy deployed to systematically enhance the fit between the intervention and the context for a universal drug use prevention curriculum. The proposed research will focus on youth at heightened risk of drug use and its consequences due to trauma exposure. The proposed research is significant because of its potential to have a positive public health impact by preventing and reducing youth drug use and its consequences.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 6
• Est. completion date: July 14, 2022
• Est. primary completion date: July 14, 2022
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 14 Years to 99 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Schools which fail to meet state standards for implementation (less than 80% of curriculum) and/or face one or more barriers to MMH implementation

Exclusion Criteria:

• None

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Substance Abuse
• Substance-Related Disorders

Intervention

Behavioral:
• Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (Enhanced REP)
Deploy Enhanced REP to optimize the delivery of a drug use prevention intervention in community schools and test its feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness; Enhanced REP includes tailoring the curriculum, training, and providing ongoing provider consultation, or facilitation, to support implementation.
• Standard implementation
Standard implementation of the Michigan Model for Health is akin to Standard REP and includes the curriculum materials, standard training and as-needed technical assistance.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Wayne State University	Detroit	Michigan

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Wayne State University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (6)

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 7;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50. — View Citation

Eisman AB, Kilbourne AM, Greene D Jr, Walton M, Cunningham R. The User-Program Interaction: How Teacher Experience Shapes the Relationship Between Intervention Packaging and Fidelity to a State-Adopted Health Curriculum. Prev Sci. 2020 Aug;21(6):820-829. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01120-8. — View Citation

Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, Bauer MS, Stall R. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci. 2007 Dec 9;2:42. — View Citation

O'neill JM, Clark JK, Jones JA. Promoting mental health and preventing substance abuse and violence in elementary students: a randomized control study of the Michigan Model for Health. J Sch Health. 2011 Jun;81(6):320-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00597.x. — View Citation

Stirman SW, Miller CJ, Toder K, Calloway A. Development of a framework and coding system for modifications and adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 10;8:65. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-65. Review. — View Citation

Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, Boynton MH, Halko H. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 29;12(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Curriculum Feasibility	To evaluate comprehensively curriculum feasibility, the investigators adopt a convergent mixed methods design. The purpose of a convergent design is to obtain complementary, though different, data on the same topic. Weiner et al.'s measures will be used to assess feasibility. Each construct has 4 items (e.g., REP is appealing, REP seems suitable), from 1: Strongly disagree to 5: Strongly agree. The investigators will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) interview guide to guide the qualitative investigation of using Enhanced REP for MMH. The interview guide will be designed to elicit specific feedback on Enhanced REP components (manual, training, and facilitation) and their feasibility to deliver MMH.	9 months
Primary	Curriculum Acceptability	To evaluate comprehensively curriculum acceptability, the researchers adopt a convergent mixed methods design. The purpose of a convergent design is to obtain complementary, though different, data on the same topic. Weiner et al.'s measures will be used to assess acceptability. Each construct has 4 items (e.g., REP is appealing, REP seems suitable), from 1: Strongly disagree to 5: Strongly agree. The investigators will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) interview guide to guide the qualitative investigation of using Enhanced REP for MMH. The interview guide will be designed to elicit specific feedback on Enhanced REP components (manual, training, and facilitation) and their acceptability to deliver MMH.	9 months
Primary	Curriculum Appropriateness	To evaluate comprehensively appropriateness the investigators adopt a convergent mixed methods design. The purpose of a convergent design is to obtain complementary, though different, data on the same topic. Weiner et al.'s measures will be used to assess appropriateness. Each construct has 4 items (e.g., REP is appealing, REP seems suitable), from 1: Strongly disagree to 5: Strongly agree. The investigators will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) interview guide to guide the qualitative investigation of using Enhanced REP for MMH. The interview guide will be designed to elicit specific feedback on Enhanced REP components (manual, training, and facilitation) and their appropriateness to deliver MMH.	9 months
Primary	Cost-Effectiveness	Implementation cost measures are guided by Costs of Implementing New Strategies (COINS) and include implementation strategy costs across phases of implementation relevant for replication. The investigators will measure implementation costs using a micro-costing approach to assess labor and non-labor costs. The investigators will also use available cost data from the school district as needed, summary data from previous empirical studies on implementation costs, and routinely available cost data using market prices.; Net costs (net increase in costs from the Enhanced REP condition versus standard implementation) and net effectiveness (net decrease in substance use from the Enhanced REP condition versus standard implementation) will be used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.	9 months
Secondary	Substance Use	The investigators will assess past substance use using items from Monitoring the Future (MTF) with adapted response options and timeframe.	9 months
Secondary	Student Engagement	The investigators will assess student engagement using student satisfaction and key intervention skills. The satisfaction measure will be adapted based on a scale developed by Giles et al. for another drug prevention intervention with good psychometric properties that will include 4 items. The investigators will evaluate key intervention skills: assertive communication, refusal skills, and decision making. These dimensions are identified in the curriculum summative evaluation materials identified by the MMH curriculum and assessed in previous MMH studies and based on National Health Education Standards. The current study will assess secondary behavioral outcomes including poly-drug use using an item from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Substance use consequences (e.g., missed school due to substance use) will be ascertained using items from the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers.	9 months
Secondary	Dose Delivered	The investigators will assess dose or amount of program delivered using a curriculum fidelity tracking from. Teachers will be asked to complete a brief form following each lesson/unit included in the study. These units/lessons include the alcohol, tobacco and other drug prevention unit, the skills unit, and the social and emotional learning unit. The investigators will assess dose delivered by calculating the total number of lessons completed within each unit (10 lessons/unit). As part of the tracking form, teachers will report any adaptations or modifications, guided by the framework proposed by Wiltsey-Stirman et.al. This includes adding, removing and changing content, substituting activities and changing activity formats.	9 months

External Links

•   This website contains the resources for the intervention group and access to the surveys which teachers use to track their lesson fidelity.