Working…
COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation.
Get the latest public health information from CDC: https://www.coronavirus.gov.

Get the latest research information from NIH: https://www.nih.gov/coronavirus.
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Developing SUPPORT, a Community-Driven, Recovery-Oriented System of Care (SUPPORT)

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03132753
Recruitment Status : Active, not recruiting
First Posted : April 28, 2017
Results First Posted : October 19, 2020
Last Update Posted : October 19, 2020
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Dennis Watson, Indiana University

Brief Summary:

The investigators seek to develop and assess the effectiveness of Substance Use Programming for Person-Oriented Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT), a community-driven recovery-oriented system of care for individuals recently released from prison. SUPPORT is modeled after Indiana Access to Recovery (ATR), a program that operated between October 2007 and December 2014. ATR, a national initiative funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provided comprehensive, flexible, recovery-oriented services for substance use disorder (SUD). The investigators' local evaluation of this program demonstrated significant improvement in a number of recovery-related outcomes (e.g., substance use, employment, income, involvement in the criminal justice system, and emotional well-being) for clients between intake and discharge. Additionally, qualitative findings from this evaluation demonstrated ATR was well liked among clients and providers. While Indiana ATR did serve a wider range of clients, the investigators have focused SUPPORT on returning inmates because (a) this was the largest group served by the program and (b) there is significant need for evidence-based SUD interventions for this population.

The investigators' primary long-term goal is to establish an effective and scalable recovery-oriented system of care for SUD within the reentry population. The investigators will conduct a pilot test comparing SUPPORT clients to clients receiving usual treatment. The investigators will collect quantitative data for both groups at multiple time points to understand the intervention's impact on recovery capital and outcomes and will collect qualitative data from SUPPORT clients to better understand their program and post-discharge experiences.


Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Substance Use Behavioral: SUPPORT Not Applicable

Show Show detailed description

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 100 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
Official Title: Developing SUPPORT, a Community-Driven, Recovery-Oriented System of Care
Actual Study Start Date : October 23, 2017
Actual Primary Completion Date : January 30, 2020
Estimated Study Completion Date : December 30, 2020

Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: SUPPORT Group
Subjects enrolled in the intervention.
Behavioral: SUPPORT
SUPPORT clients will be offered 12 months of support service with a recovery coach. The recovery coach will guide the client through their recovery, offering guidance and support, while coordinating their treatment services, including support services. The program will provide clients with up to $700 worth of vouchers to cover the cost of additional flexible support services over the 12 months of program enrollment, which will be personalized to fit the needs of the client. These cost vouchers will cover support services, such as housing, employment services, substance use treatment, transportation, childcare, educational or vocational services, or aftercare planning. The costs of each service is determined by the service provider. Further, the recovery coach will assist the client in choosing appropriate services and coordinating/monitoring service completion.

No Intervention: Treatment as Usual
Subjects enrolled in standard services.



Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use [ Time Frame: Baseline ]

    Using the Frequency of Drug Use scale, we measured self-reported use of alcohol, sedative, tranquilizers, painkillers, stimulants, marijuana, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, and prescription medications. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of days having used each listed drug within the past 30 days.

    The minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 30.


  2. Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use [ Time Frame: 6 months ]

    Using the Frequency of Drug Use scale, we measured self-reported use of alcohol, sedative, tranquilizers, painkillers, stimulants, marijuana, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, and prescription medications. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of days having used each listed drug within the past 30 days.

    The minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 30.


  3. Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use [ Time Frame: 12 months ]

    Using the Frequency of Drug Use scale, we measured self-reported use of alcohol, sedative, tranquilizers, painkillers, stimulants, marijuana, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, and prescription medications. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of days having used each listed drug within the past 30 days.

    The minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 30.


  4. Difference in the Number of Days That Participants Reported Substance Use [ Time Frame: Baseline- 6 months ]

    Using the Frequency of Drug Use scale, we measured self-reported use of alcohol, sedative, tranquilizers, painkillers, stimulants, marijuana, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, and prescription medications. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of days having used each listed drug within the past 30 days.

    The minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 30.


  5. Difference in the Number of Days That Participants Reported Substance Use [ Time Frame: 6 months - 12 months ]

    Using the Frequency of Drug Use scale, we measured self-reported use of alcohol, sedative, tranquilizers, painkillers, stimulants, marijuana, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, and prescription medications. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of days having used each listed drug within the past 30 days.

    The minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 30.


  6. Difference in the Number of Days That Participants Reported Substance Use [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    Using the Frequency of Drug Use scale, we measured self-reported use of alcohol, sedative, tranquilizers, painkillers, stimulants, marijuana, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, and prescription medications. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of days having used each listed drug within the past 30 days.

    The minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 30.


  7. Difference in Readiness to Change [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    Stages of Change, Readiness, and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES) is a 19-item instrument that measures readiness to change behaviors related to substance use, using a 5 point scale 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Undecided), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree). This measure is best used to assess stages of change at baseline; subsequent changes might not be clinically relevant.

    Subscales:

    1. Recognition: A higher score indicates acknowledgement of the problem, possible harm, desires change. (Range: 7-35)
    2. Ambivalence: A higher score reflects openness to reflection on drug use. A lower score may mean they "know" their drug use is causing problems (high Recognition), or they "know" that they do not have drug use problems (low Recognition). Thus, a low Ambivalence score should be interpreted in relation to the Recognition score. (Range: 4-20)
    3. Taking steps: A higher score means steps have been taken, and they may already be experiencing success. (Range: 8-40)

  8. Difference in Readiness to Change [ Time Frame: 6 months - 12 months ]

    Stages of Change, Readiness, and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES) is a 19-item instrument that measures readiness to change behaviors related to substance use, using a 5 point scale 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Undecided), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree). This measure is best used to assess stages of change at baseline; subsequent changes might not be clinically relevant.

    Subscales:

    1. Recognition: A higher score indicates acknowledgement of the problem, possible harm, desires change. (Range: 7-35)
    2. Ambivalence: A higher score reflects openness to reflection on drug use. A lower score may mean they "know" their drug use is causing problems (high Recognition), or they "know" that they do not have drug use problems (low Recognition). Thus, a low Ambivalence score should be interpreted in relation to the Recognition score. (Range: 4-20)
    3. Taking steps: A higher score means steps have been taken, and they may already be experiencing success. (Range: 8-40)

  9. Difference in Readiness to Change [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    Stages of Change, Readiness, and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES) is a 19-item instrument that measures readiness to change behaviors related to substance use, using a 5 point scale 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Undecided), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree). This measure is best used to assess stages of change at baseline; subsequent changes might not be clinically relevant.

    Subscales:

    1. Recognition: A higher score indicates acknowledgement of the problem, possible harm, desires change. (Range: 7-35)
    2. Ambivalence: A higher score reflects openness to reflection on drug use. A lower score may mean they "know" their drug use is causing problems (high Recognition), or they "know" that they do not have drug use problems (low Recognition). Thus, a low Ambivalence score should be interpreted in relation to the Recognition score. (Range: 4-20)
    3. Taking steps: A higher score means steps have been taken, and they may already be experiencing success. (Range: 8-40)

  10. Difference in Quality of Life: Perceived General Health [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    Using the 4-item Current Quality of Life Scale, we measured an individual's perceived general physical and mental health during the past 30 days. Self-perception of current physical and mental health is indicative of a person's current health and future health outcomes. The general assessment of health has been shown to be both a solid measure of self-reported health and a powerful predictor of mortality and morbidity.

    One of the four items requests participants to report on their general health, with a scale of (1) excellent, (2) very good, (3) good, (4) fair, (5) poor.


  11. Difference in Quality of Life: Perceived General Health [ Time Frame: 6 months - 12 months ]

    Using the 4-item Current Quality of Life Scale, we measured an individual's perceived general physical and mental health during the past 30 days. Self-perception of current physical and mental health is indicative of a person's current health and future health outcomes. The general assessment of health has been shown to be both a solid measure of self-reported health and a powerful predictor of mortality and morbidity.

    One of the four items requests participants to report on their general health, with a scale of (1) excellent, (2) very good, (3) good, (4) fair, (5) poor.


  12. Difference in Quality of Life: Perceived General Health [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    Using the 4-item Current Quality of Life Scale, we measured an individual's perceived general physical and mental health during the past 30 days. Self-perception of current physical and mental health is indicative of a person's current health and future health outcomes. The general assessment of health has been shown to be both a solid measure of self-reported health and a powerful predictor of mortality and morbidity.

    One of the four items requests participants to report on their general health, with a scale of (1) excellent, (2) very good, (3) good, (4) fair, (5) poor.


  13. Difference in Quality of Life: Unhealthy Days or Days Limited by Poor Health [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    Using the 4-item Current Quality of Life Scale, we measured an individual's perceived general physical and mental health during the past 30 days. Self-perception of current physical and mental health is indicative of a person's current health and future health outcomes. The general assessment of health has been shown to be both a solid measure of self-reported health and a powerful predictor of mortality and morbidity.

    Two of the four items requested the number of unhealthy days, physically or mentally, out of the past 30 days. These are reported as a sum.

    One of the four items requested the number of days that usual activities are prevented due to poor physical or mental health are also reported out of the past 30 days.


  14. Difference in Quality of Life: Unhealthy Days or Days Limited by Poor Health [ Time Frame: 6 months - 12 months ]

    Using the 4-item Current Quality of Life Scale, we measured an individual's perceived general physical and mental health during the past 30 days. Self-perception of current physical and mental health is indicative of a person's current health and future health outcomes. The general assessment of health has been shown to be both a solid measure of self-reported health and a powerful predictor of mortality and morbidity.

    Two of the four items requested the number of unhealthy days, physically or mentally, out of the past 30 days. These are reported as a sum.

    One of the four items requested the number of days that usual activities are prevented due to poor physical or mental health are also reported out of the past 30 days.


  15. Difference in Quality of Life: Unhealthy Days or Days Limited by Poor Health [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    Using the 4-item Current Quality of Life Scale, we measured an individual's perceived general physical and mental health during the past 30 days. Self-perception of current physical and mental health is indicative of a person's current health and future health outcomes. The general assessment of health has been shown to be both a solid measure of self-reported health and a powerful predictor of mortality and morbidity.

    Two of the four items requested the number of unhealthy days, physically or mentally, out of the past 30 days. These are reported as a sum.

    One of the four items requested the number of days that usual activities are prevented due to poor physical or mental health are also reported out of the past 30 days.


  16. Frequency of Incarceration [ Time Frame: 6 months ]

    Incarceration was measured through publicly available data on arrests, convictions, and periods of incarceration in Indiana. We searched each name in state prison and county jail records and identified them as incarcerated if their name appeared in the jail or prison data during the 12 month study window of their enrollment.

    Note: At baseline, we confirmed with our community partner that each participant had been in prison or jail, or on work release, within the past 3 months. However, this did not match the publicly available data, indicating that the available data is likely incomplete.


  17. Frequency of Incarceration [ Time Frame: 12 months ]

    Incarceration was measured through publicly available data on arrests, convictions, and periods of incarceration in Indiana. We searched each name in state prison and county jail records and identified them as incarcerated if their name appeared in the jail or prison data during the 12 month study window of their enrollment.

    Note: At baseline, we confirmed with our community partner that each participant had been in prison or jail, or on work release, within the past 3 months. However, this did not match the publicly available data, indicating that the available data is likely incomplete.



Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Difference in Self Determination [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Self-Determination Scale (SDS) assesses individual differences in the extent to which people tend to function in a self-determined way. It is considered a relatively enduring aspect of people's personalities which reflects being more aware of their feelings and sense of self and feeling a sense of choice with respect to their behavior. The SDS is a 10-item scale, with two 5-item subscales: (1) awareness of oneself and (2) perceived choice in one's actions. We utilized only the second scale on perceived choice.

    These 5-items present respondents with 2 statements: Statement (A) indicates more choice and Statement (B) indicates less choice.

    Respondents answer on a five point scale: 1 "Only A feels true", 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Only B feels true."

    For perceived choice, the 5 items are reverse scored so that higher scores on every item will indicate a higher level of self-determination. Range: (5-25)


  2. Difference in Self Determination [ Time Frame: 6 months - 12 months ]

    The Self-Determination Scale (SDS) assesses individual differences in the extent to which people tend to function in a self-determined way. It is considered a relatively enduring aspect of people's personalities which reflects being more aware of their feelings and sense of self and feeling a sense of choice with respect to their behavior. The SDS is a 10-item scale, with two 5-item subscales: (1) awareness of oneself and (2) perceived choice in one's actions. We utilized only the second scale on perceived choice.

    These 5-items present respondents with 2 statements: Statement (A) indicates more choice and Statement (B) indicates less choice.

    Respondents answer on a five point scale: 1 "Only A feels true", 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Only B feels true."

    For perceived choice, the 5 items are reverse scored so that higher scores on every item will indicate a higher level of self-determination. Range: (5-25)


  3. Difference in Self Determination [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Self-Determination Scale (SDS) assesses individual differences in the extent to which people tend to function in a self-determined way. It is considered a relatively enduring aspect of people's personalities which reflects being more aware of their feelings and sense of self and feeling a sense of choice with respect to their behavior. The SDS is a 10-item scale, with two 5-item subscales: (1) awareness of oneself and (2) perceived choice in one's actions. We utilized only the second scale on perceived choice.

    These 5-items present respondents with 2 statements: Statement (A) indicates more choice and Statement (B) indicates less choice.

    Respondents answer on a five point scale: 1 "Only A feels true", 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Only B feels true."

    For perceived choice, the 5 items are reverse scored so that higher scores on every item will indicate a higher level of self-determination. Range: (5-25)


  4. Difference in Self Efficacy [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    Using the General Self Efficacy Scale, we measured an individual's belief about whether problems or barriers can be confronted and addressed with a successful outcome. This scale can be used to determine how the respondent copes with daily hassles and adapts to stressful life events. Self-efficacy is indicative of subsequent behavior and can be used for clinical practice and psychological research.

    The 10-item instrument uses a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true), so the composite score ranges from 10 to 40 with higher score indicating greater self-efficacy.


  5. Difference in Self Efficacy [ Time Frame: 6 months - 12 months ]

    Using the General Self Efficacy Scale, we measured an individual's belief about whether problems or barriers can be confronted and addressed with a successful outcome. This scale can be used to determine how the respondent copes with daily hassles and adapts to stressful life events. Self-efficacy is indicative of subsequent behavior and can be used for clinical practice and psychological research.

    The 10-item instrument uses a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true), so the composite score ranges from 10 to 40 with higher score indicating greater self-efficacy (a better outcome).


  6. Difference in Self Efficacy [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    Using the General Self Efficacy Scale, we measured an individual's belief about whether problems or barriers can be confronted and addressed with a successful outcome. This scale can be used to determine how the respondent copes with daily hassles and adapts to stressful life events. Self-efficacy is indicative of subsequent behavior and can be used for clinical practice and psychological research.

    The 10-item instrument uses a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true), so the composite score ranges from 10 to 40 with higher score indicating greater self-efficacy (a better outcome).


  7. Difference in Number of Alters That Participants Identified in Their Social Network [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Respondents identify individuals who make up their social networks. Each individual is identified as an alter, and alters are totaled to determine network size.


  8. Difference in Number of Alters That Participants Identified in Their Social Network [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Respondents identify individuals who make up their social networks. Each individual is identified as an alter, and alters are totaled to determine network size.


  9. Difference in the Fraction of Network That Are Close to Subject [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify how close they are to each alter using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close.

    Below is the difference in the fraction of network close to the subject. Results are presented for the fraction of the network identified as being "very close", as well as combined "very close" or "sort of close".


  10. Difference in the Fraction of Network That Are Close to Subject [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify how close they are to each alter using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close.

    Below is the difference in the fraction of network close to the subject. Results are presented for the fraction of the network identified as being "very close", as well as combined "very close" or "sort of close".


  11. Difference in the Network Closeness Sum [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Network closeness refers to the closeness of the participant's network (i.e. how close the alters identified are to one another).

    After identifying alters within their network, respondents are asked to identify how close each alter is to one another using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close. Thus, for each original alter pair, the respondent scores their closeness on a range of 1 to 3. A lower score indicates a stronger network.


  12. Difference in the Network Closeness Sum [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Network closeness refers to the closeness of the participant's network (i.e. how close the alters identified are to one another).

    After identifying alters within their network, respondents are asked to identify how close each alter is to one another using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close. Thus, for each original alter pair, the respondent scores their closeness on a range of 1 to 3. A lower score indicates a stronger network.


  13. Difference in the Network Closeness Average [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Network closeness refers to the closeness of the participant's network (i.e. how close the alters identified are to one another).

    After identifying alters within their network, respondents are asked to identify how close each alter is to one another using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close. Thus, for each original alter pair, the respondent scores their closeness on a range of 1 to 3. A lower score indicates a stronger network.


  14. Difference in the Network Closeness Average [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters. This component focuses on the closeness of the participants network (i.e. how close the alters identified are to one another).

    After identifying alters within their network, respondents are asked to identify how close each alter is to one another using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close. Thus, for each alter pair, the respondent scores their closeness on a range of 1 to 3, with a lower score indicating more closeness.

    Below is the difference in the network closeness. The range for this scale will differ, depending on the number of alters identified.


  15. Difference in the Network Closeness Density [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Network closeness refers to the closeness of the participant's network (i.e. how close the alters identified are to one another).

    After identifying alters within their network, respondents are asked to identify how close each alter is to one another using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close. Thus, for each original alter pair, the respondent scores their closeness on a range of 1 to 3. A lower score indicates a stronger network.


  16. Difference in the Network Closeness Density [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    Network closeness refers to the closeness of the participant's network (i.e. how close the alters identified are to one another).

    After identifying alters within their network, respondents are asked to identify how close each alter is to one another using a 3-point scale: (1) Very close, (2) Sort of close, (3) Not very close. Thus, for each original alter pair, the respondent scores their closeness on a range of 1 to 3. A lower score indicates a stronger network.


  17. Difference in the Fraction of Network Communicating With Subject [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify how often they see this person or talk to them on the phone or video chat using a 3-point scale (1) Often, (2) Occasionally, (3) Hardly Ever. Below is the difference in the fraction of network communicating with the subject. Results are presented for the fraction of the network identified as communicating "often", as well as combined "often" or "occasionally".


  18. Difference in the Fraction of Network Communicating With Subject [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify how often they see this person or talk to them on the phone or video chat using a 3-point scale(1) Often, (2) Occasionally, (3) Hardly Ever. Below is the difference in the fraction of network communicating with the subject. Results are presented for the fraction of the network identified as communicating "often", as well as combined "often" or "occasionally".


  19. Difference in the Fraction of Network Providing Support to the Subject [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify types of support provided by alters. Examples are given (listed below) and subjects select all that apply. Below is the difference in the fraction network providing support to the subject.


  20. Difference in the Fraction of Network Providing Support to the Subject [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify types of support provided by alters. Examples are given (listed below) and subjects select all that apply. Below is the difference in the fraction network providing support to the subject.


  21. Difference in the Fraction of Network Causing Subject Problems [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify whether the alter ever hassles them, causes them problems, or makes life difficult, using a 3-point scale: (1) A lot, (2) Sometimes, (3) No/Not Really. Below is the difference in the fraction of network causing the subject problems. For analysis, we combined "a lot" and "sometimes" into a single category and compared it to "no/not really".


  22. Difference in the Fraction of Network Causing Subject Problems [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify whether the alter ever hassles them, causes them problems, or makes life difficult, using a 3-point scale: (1) A lot, (2) Sometimes, (3) No/Not Really. Below is the difference in the fraction of network causing the subject problems. For analysis, we combined "a lot" and "sometimes" into a single category and compared it to "no/not really".


  23. Difference in the Fraction of Network Using Substance(s) [ Time Frame: Baseline - 6 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify whether the alter uses alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs/medication for reasons other their prescribed purposes. Below is the difference in the fraction of the network using a substance(s).


  24. Difference in the Fraction of Network Using Substance(s) [ Time Frame: Baseline - 12 months ]

    The Social Networks tool is an interviewer-administered questionnaire to assess whom respondents depend on for help in important general matters and specific health matters. This measure captures each of the respondent's network members and a complete assessment of network structure to construct the respondent's social network and whom they rely on for help with health-related and other matters.

    After identifying their network, respondents are asked to identify whether the alter uses alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs/medication for reasons other their prescribed purposes. Below is the difference in the fraction of the network using a substance(s).




Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   Yes
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • All PACE clients who are over the age of 18, have a SUD, are no longer incarcerated (in a prison, jail, or work release facility), are within 3 months of release from prison, jail, or work release, and are unable to access the previously mentioned Recovery Works program will be eligible for study participation.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any individual that is not a PACE client, has not been released from prison, over the age of 18, or does not have a substance abuse disorder will not be included in the study.

Also, sex offenders will be excluded from this study because of the additional integration barriers faced by this population and their increased parole supervision, as these may confounding variables in such a small pilot.


Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03132753


Locations
Layout table for location information
United States, Indiana
Public Advocates in Community Re-Entry (PACE)
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46218
Sponsors and Collaborators
Indiana University
  Study Documents (Full-Text)

Documents provided by Dennis Watson, Indiana University:
Informed Consent Form  [PDF] September 26, 2017

Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Dennis Watson, Principal Investigator, Indiana University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03132753    
Other Study ID Numbers: 1511731907
First Posted: April 28, 2017    Key Record Dates
Results First Posted: October 19, 2020
Last Update Posted: October 19, 2020
Last Verified: September 2020
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: No

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No