The relationship between Clinical Trial Network protocol involvement and quality of substance use disorder treatment

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update.

METHODS

We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews.

RESULTS

In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a "dose effect" from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Implementation of Motivational Interviewing in Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Research Network Participation and Organizational Compatibility

INTRODUCTION

Despite considerable empirical evidence that psychosocial interventions improve addiction treatment outcomes across populations, implementation remains problematic. A small body of research points to the importance of research network participation as a facilitator of implementation; however, studies examined limited numbers of evidence-based practices. To address this gap, the present study examined factors impacting implementation of motivational interviewing (MI).

METHODS

This study used data from a national sample of privately funded treatment programs (n = 345) and programs participating in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) (n = 156). Data were collected via face-to-face interviews with program administrators and clinical directors (2007-2009). Analysis included bivariate t tests and chi-square tests to compare private and CTN programs, and multivariable logistic regression of MI implementation.

FINDINGS

A majority (68.0%) of treatment programs reported use of MI. Treatment programs participating in the CTN (88.9%) were significantly more likely to report use of MI compared with non-CTN programs (58.5%; P < 0.01). CTN programs (82.1%) also were more likely to use trainers from the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers as compared with private programs (56.1%; P < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression models reveal that CTN-affiliated programs and programs with a psychiatrist on staff were more likely to use MI. Programs that used the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale assessment tool were more likely to use MI, whereas programs placing greater emphasis on confrontational group therapy were less likely to use MI.

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest the critical role of research network participation, access to psychiatrists, and organizational compatibility in adoption and sustained use of MI.

Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Participating in Practice-based Research (PBR): A Report from the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN)

BACKGROUND

The success of practice-based research (PBR) depends on the willingness of clinicians and staff to incorporate meaningful and useful research protocols into already demanding clinic schedules. The impact of participation on those who implement multiple projects and how to address the issues that arise during this complex process remain incompletely described. This article reports a qualitative evaluation of the experiences of primary care clinicians and clinic staff who participated in multiple PBR projects with the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN). Also included are their suggestions to researchers and clinicians for future collaborations.

METHODS

For program evaluation purposes, WREN conducted 4 focus groups at its 2014 annual meeting. The main focus group question was, "How has participation in PBR affected you and your clinic?" A total of 27 project members from 13 clinics participated in 4 groups (physicians, nurses, managers, and other clinical staff). The 2-hour sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify recurring themes.

RESULTS

Five major focus group themes emerged: receptivity to research, outcomes as a result of participation, barriers to implementation, facilitators of success, and advice to researchers and colleagues. Focus group members find research valuable and enjoy participating in projects that are relevant to their practice, even though many barriers exist. They indicated that research participation produces clinical changes that they believe result in improved patient care. They offered ways to improve the research process, with particular emphasis on collaborative early planning, project development, and communication before, during, and after a project.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinics that participate in WREN projects remain willing to risk potential work constraints because of immediate or impending benefits to their clinical practice and/or patient population. Including a broader array of clinic personnel in the communication processes, especially in the development of relevant research ideas and planning for clinic implementation and ongoing participation in research projects, would address many of the barriers identified in implementing PBR. The themes and supporting quotes identified in this evaluation of WREN projects may inform researchers planning to collaborate with primary care clinics and clinicians and staff considering participating in research endeavors.

Technology transfer for the implementation of a clinical trials network on drug abuse and mental health treatment in Mexico

Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) lack the research infrastructure and capacity to conduct rigorous substance abuse and mental health effectiveness clinical trials to guide clinical practice. A partnership between the Florida Node Alliance of the United States National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network and the National Institute of Psychiatry in Mexico was established in 2011 to improve substance abuse practice in Mexico. The purpose of this partnership was to develop a Mexican national clinical trials network of substance abuse researchers and providers capable of implementing effectiveness randomized clinical trials in community-based settings. A technology transfer model was implemented and ran from 2011-2013. The Florida Node Alliance shared the "know how" for the development of the research infrastructure to implement randomized clinical trials in community programs through core and specific training modules, role-specific coaching, pairings, modeling, monitoring, and feedback. The technology transfer process was bi-directional in nature in that it was informed by feedback on feasibility and cultural appropriateness for the context in which practices were implemented. The Institute, in turn, led the effort to create the national network of researchers and practitioners in Mexico and the implementation of the first trial. A collaborative model of technology transfer was useful in creating a Mexican researcher-provider network that is capable of changing national practice in substance abuse research and treatment. Key considerations for transnational technology transfer are presented.