Scales for participant Alliance with Recovery Coach (SPARC): initial development and pilot test.

Recovery coaches are individuals with lived experience with recovery from substance use disorder who typically engender a greater sense of trust than found with other types of healthcare providers. However, there currently are no validated tools that measure the connection between recovery coaches and their participants. The purpose of this study was to describe the initial development of the Scales for Participant Alliance with Recovery Coach (SPARC) to measure recovery coach connection or alliance, including initial psychometric analyses. Measurement development began with five scales of the Client Evaluation of Self Treatment (treatment participation, treatment satisfaction, rapport, peer support, and social support). Adapted items were pre-tested with focus groups (n = 8) to ensure they were meaningful and accurately reflected the domains (Study 1). After modifications, the SPARC has six scales (engagement, satisfaction, rapport, motivation and encouragement, role model and community linkage). The survey was piloted with 100 individuals (Study 2) age 18 or over who had met with a recovery coach within the last six months. Most study participants were male (60%) and white (87%) with less than two years in recovery. After removing two low performing items, the items for five of the domains had acceptable internal consistency. The items for the engagement domain had a slightly lower reliability. Findings suggest that items cover relevant recovery coach roles, are internally consistent within domains, and can be easily administered to individuals engaging in recovery coaching services. Additional research is needed with a larger, more heterogenous sample to further refine items.

Development and initial findings from the Peer Recovery Coach (PRC) checklist: a new tool to assess the nature of peer recovery coaching service delivery.

Background: Peer recovery coaching is recovery support service for Substance Use Disorder (SUD) that emphasizes shared lived experience and social support. Though a promising intervention for SUD, differences in the roles, responsibilities, and operationalization of peer recovery coaching across studies make objective implementation and evaluation of this service a challenge.Objective: This study sought to develop a tool to better guide and operationalize peer recovery coaching service delivery. This study describes the initial development, acceptability, feasibility, and validity of this tool: The PRC Checklist.Methods: The PRC Checklist was conceptualized and operationalized by drawing from social support theory and recovery capital research. The PRC Checklist was utilized by PRCs in a pilot randomized controlled trial to demonstrate feasibility and acceptability. To further validate the PRC Checklist, recovery coaches (N = 16; 56% female) were recruited to complete a survey about their responsibilities and their perspectives on the content and potential utility of the PRC Checklist.Results: The PRC checklist used in the pilot study delineates personalized from generalized support and tracks 25 specific activities across three domains of support (i.e. socioemotional, informational, and instrumental). PRCs in the pilot study were able to use the PRC Checklist in all in-person initial baseline encounters and 96.4% of follow-up encounters. Qualitative information collected during project meetings was generally positive but also identified potential limitations to its use. All PRCs surveyed reported that they agreed that the PRC Checklist was helpful, encompassed the services they provided, represented a good idea, provided meaningful information, and would be easy to use. All five of the most common activities PRCs engaged in were reflected in the PRC Checklist.Conclusion: Capturing both personal and generalized support provided by PRCs, this work suggests that the PRC Checklist captures key activities engaged in and is a helpful tool for use in healthcare settings.

Acute Care Utilization After Recovery Coaching Linkage During Substance-Related Inpatient Admission: Results of Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: For patients with substance use disorder (SUD), a peer recovery coach (PRC) intervention increases engagement in recovery services; effective support services interventions have occasionally demonstrated cost savings through decreased acute care utilization. OBJECTIVE: Examine effect of PRCs on acute care utilization. DESIGN: Combined results of 2 parallel 1:1 randomized controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient adults with substance use disorder INTERVENTIONS: Inpatient PRC linkage and follow-up contact for 6 months vs usual care (providing contact information for SUD resources and PRCs) MAIN MEASURES: Acute care encounters (emergency and inpatient) 6 months before and after enrollment; encounter type by primary diagnosis code category (mental/behavioral vs medical); 30-day readmissions with Lace+ readmission risk scores. KEY RESULTS: A total of 193 patients were randomized: 95 PRC; 98 control. In the PRC intervention, 66 patients had a pre-enrollment acute care encounter and 56 had an encounter post-enrollment, compared to the control group with 59 pre- and 62 post-enrollment (odds ratio [OR] = -0.79, P = 0.11); there was no significant effect for sub-groups by encounter location (emergency vs inpatient). There was a significant decrease in mental/behavioral ED visits (PRC: pre-enrollment 17 vs post-enrollment 10; control: pre-enrollment 13 vs post-enrollment 16 (OR = -2.62, P = 0.02)) but not mental/behavioral inpatient encounters or medical emergency or inpatient encounters. There was no significant difference in 30-day readmissions corrected for Lace+ scores (15.8% PRC vs 17.3% control, OR = 0.19, P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: PRCs did not decrease overall acute care utilization but may decrease emergency encounters related to substance use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04098601, NCT04098614).

One-Stop Shopping for Recovery: An Investigation of Participant Characteristics and Benefits Derived From U.S. Recovery Community Centers.

BACKGROUND: Recovery community centers (RCCs) are the "new kid on the block" in providing addiction recovery services, adding a third tier to the 2 existing tiers of formal treatment and mutual-help organizations (MHOs). RCCs are intended to be recovery hubs facilitating "one-stop shopping" in the accrual of recovery capital (e.g., recovery coaching; employment/educational linkages). Despite their growth, little is known about who uses RCCs, what they use, and how use relates to improvements in functioning and quality of life. Greater knowledge would inform the field about RCC's potential clinical and public health utility. METHODS: Online survey conducted with participants (N = 336) attending RCCs (k = 31) in the northeastern United States. Substance use history, services used, and derived benefits (e.g., quality of life) were assessed. Systematic regression modeling tested a priori theorized relationships among variables. RESULTS: RCC members (n = 336) were on average 41.1 ± 12.4 years of age, 50% female, predominantly White (78.6%), with high school or lower education (48.8%), and limited income (45.2% <$10,000 past-year household income). Most had either a primary opioid (32.7%) or alcohol (26.8%) problem. Just under half (48.5%) reported a lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. Participants had been attending RCCs for 2.6 ± 3.4 years, with many attending <1 year (35.4%). Most commonly used aspects were the socially oriented mutual-help/peer groups and volunteering, but technological assistance and employment assistance were also common. Conceptual model testing found RCCs associated with increased recovery capital, but not social support; both of these theorized proximal outcomes, however, were related to improvements in psychological distress, self-esteem, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: RCCs are utilized by an array of individuals with few resources and primary opioid or alcohol histories. Whereas strong social supportive elements were common and highly rated, RCCs appear to play a more unique role not provided either by formal treatment or by MHOs in facilitating the acquisition of recovery capital and thereby enhancing functioning and quality of life.

Recovery Barrier Characterizations by Hospitalized Patients with Substance Use Disorders: Results from a Randomized Clinical Study on Inpatient Peer Recovery Coaching.

Patients hospitalized with medical complications from substance use disorder (SUD) encounter unique health problems that may complicate their recovery. Recovery barriers are not well understood in this population. The study objective is to characterize recovery barriers in this patient population. Participants (n = 96) in this six-month longitudinal study were randomized to a peer recovery coaching intervention or standard of care. The primary outcome measures were qualitative, open-ended questions addressing factors interfering with participants' recovery. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Themes were identified a priori using past research on recovery capital domains; these seven barriers were (1) psychological health difficulties, (2) physical health challenges, (3) lack of social support, (4) insufficient treatment or recovery support to maintain sobriety, (5) environmental and housing concerns, (6) deficits in coping skills, and (7) lack of meaningful activities. At baseline, the most common recovery barriers were in the environment and housing (28.1%), psychological health (27.1%), and social support (22.9%) domains. At six-month follow-up, participants were asked to describe barriers they felt they had made improvement in over the last six months. The primary themes that participants reported improvements in were treatment and recovery support to maintain sobriety (52.1%), coping skills (35.4%), and social support (27.1%). Hospitalization and participation in a randomized controlled trial may be a turning point in which to address recovery barriers for patients hospitalized with complications from SUD.

Rationale, design, and methodology of a randomized pilot trial of an integrated intervention combining computerized behavioral therapy and recovery coaching for people with opioid use disorder: The OVERCOME study.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) has led to a staggering death toll in terms of drug-related overdoses. Despite the demonstrated benefits and effectiveness of buprenorphine, retention is suboptimal, and patients typically present with high rates of ongoing polysubstance use during treatment. A pilot trial provided preliminary support for the efficacy of computer-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT4CBT) as an add-on to buprenorphine in reducing substance use. Recovery coaching services provided by individuals with substance use experience and successful recovery have also shown to positively influence recovery outcomes for people with OUD by increasing buprenorphine initiation and reducing opioid use. Methods: The OVERCOME study is a randomized clinical trial (RCT) aimed to tests an integrated intervention combining CBT4CBT and Recovery Coaching relative to treatment-as-usual (TAU) among individuals with OUD on buprenorphine. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of samples with any drug tested as positive at each research visit conducted during treatment (visits 1 to 8). Secondary outcomes include the percentage of samples with any drug tested as positive at 1- and 3- month follow-up and retention to buprenorphine at 3- month follow-up. Results: We describe the rationale, design, and methodology of the OVERCOME Study. Conclusion: This trial will provide evidence of the efficacy of an integrated intervention combining CBT4CBT and Recovery Coaching for reducing substance use and increasing buprenorphine adherence which has the potential to reduce mortality among people with OUD.

Impact of an osteopathic peer recovery coaching model on treatment outcomes in high-risk men entering residential treatment for substance use disorders.

CONTEXT: The United States has witnessed a disproportionate rise in substance use disorders (SUD) and co-occurring mental health disorders, paired with housing instability, especially among racially minoritized communities. Traditional in-patient residential treatment programs for SUD have proven inconsistent in their effectiveness in preventing relapse and maintaining attrition among these patient populations. There is evidence showing that peer recovery programs led by individuals who have lived experience with SUD can increase social support and foster intrinsic motivation within participants to bolster their recovery. These peer recovery programs, when coupled with a standardized training program for peer recovery coaches, may be very efficacious at improving patient health outcomes, boosting performance on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) national outcome measures (NOMs), and helping participants build an overall better quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study is to highlight the efficacy of a peer recovery program, the Minority Aids Initiative, in improving health outcomes and associated NOMs in men with SUD and/or co-occurring mental health disorder. METHODS: Participants received six months of peer recovery coaching from trained staff. Sessions were guided by the Manual for Recovery Coaching and focused on 10 different domains of recovery. Participants and coaches set long-term goals and created weekly action plans to work toward them. Standardized assessments (SAMHSA's Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] tool, Addiction Severity Index [ASI]) were administered by recovery coaches at intake and at the 6-month time point to evaluate participant progress. Analyses of participant recovery were carried out according to SAMHSA's six NOMs and assessed the outcomes of the intervention and their significance. RESULTS: A total of 115 participants enrolled in the program over a 2-year period. Among them, 53 were eligible for 6-month follow-up interviews. In total, 321 sessions were held, with an average of three sessions per participant. Participants showed marked improvement across five of the six NOMs at the end of the 6-month course and across all ASI outcomes, with the exception of three in which participants reported an absence or few symptoms at intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that participants receive benefits across nearly all NOM categories when paired with recovery coaches who are well trained in medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) over a 6-month period. We see the following: a higher rate of abstinence; increased housing stability; lower health, behavioral, and social consequences; lower depression and anxiety; longer participant-recovery coach exposure time; and higher follow-up rates. We hope that our results can contribute to advancements and greater acceptance in the implementation of peer recovery coaching as well as an improvement in the lives of the communities affected by substance use.

Recovery community centers: Characteristics of new attendees and longitudinal investigation of the predictors and effects of participation.

OBJECTIVE: Recovery community centers (RCCs) have expanded across the U.S., serving as social "recovery hubs" that increase recovery capital (e.g., employment, housing) by providing resources that clinical care does not provide. While research supports RCCs' general utility, little is known about new participants' characteristics, predictors of engagement, services used, and benefits derived. Greater knowledge would inform the field about RCCs' clinical and public health potential. METHOD: Prospective, single-group study of individuals (N = 275) starting at RCCs (k = 7) in the northeastern U.S. and reassessed 3 months later regarding the services these individuals used and the benefits they derived (e.g., reduced substance problems, enhanced quality of life [QOL]). Regression and longitudinal models tested theorized relationships. RESULTS: Participants were mostly young to middle-aged, racially diverse, single, unemployed, men and women, with low education and income, suffering from opioid or alcohol use disorder, with a history of psychiatric problems, low QOL, and prior treatment/mutual-help participation. Attendance varied greatly, but on average, was 1-2 times/week, with greater RCC engagement predicted by Hispanic ethnicity, shorter travel time, prior treatment, lower initial social support, and relatively greater baseline QOL (QOL was low overall). Commonly used and highly valued services included social support infrastructures (e.g., recovery coaching/meetings), and technological and employment assistance. In longitudinal analyses (n = 138), the study observed improvements in duration of abstinence, substance problems, psychological well-being, and QOL, but not in recovery assets. CONCLUSION: Findings generally are consistent with prior observations that RCCs engage and provide benefits for individuals facing the greatest challenges in terms of clinical pathology and low QOL and resources.

Reducing Opioid Mortality in Illinois (ROMI): A case management/peer recovery coaching critical time intervention clinical trial protocol.

Individuals with a history of opioid use are disproportionately represented in Illinois jails and prisons and face high risks of overdose and relapse at community reentry. Case management and peer recovery coaching are established interventions that may be leveraged to improve linkage to substance use treatment and supportive services during these critical periods of transition. We present the protocol for the Reducing Opioid Mortality in Illinois (ROMI), a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial of a case management, peer recovery coaching and overdose education and naloxone distribution (CM/PRC + OEND) critical time intervention (CTI) compared to OEND alone. The CM/PRC + OEND is a novel, 12-month intervention that involves linkage to substance use treatment and support for continuity of care, skills building, and navigation and engagement of social services that will be implemented using a hub-and-spoke model of training and supervision across the study sites. At least 1000 individuals released from jails and prisons spanning urban and rural settings will be enrolled. The primary outcome is engagement in medication for opioid use disorder. Secondary outcomes include health insurance enrollment, mental health service engagement, and re-arrest/recidivism, parole violation, and/or reincarceration. Mixed methods will be used to evaluate process and implementation outcomes including fidelity to, barriers to, facilitators of, and cost of the intervention. Videoconferencing and other remote processes will be leveraged to modify the protocol for safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of the study may improve outcomes for vulnerable persons at the margin of behavioral health and the criminal legal system.

Evaluation of an emergency department-based opioid overdose survivor intervention: Difference-in-difference analysis of electronic health record data to assess key outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of emergency department (ED)-based interventions have been developed to provide supports and/or treatment linkage for people who use opioids. However, there is limited research supporting the effectiveness of the majority of these interventions. Project POINT is an ED-based intervention aimed at providing opioid overdose survivors with naloxone and recovery supports and connecting them to evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). An evaluation of POINT was conducted. METHODS: A difference-in-difference analysis of electronic health record data was completed to understand the difference in outcomes for patients admitted to the ED when a POINT staff member was working versus times when they were not. The observation window was January 1, 2012 to July 6, 2019, which included N = 1462 unique individuals, of which 802 were in the POINT arm. Outcomes of focus include MOUD opioid prescriptions dispensed, active non-MOUD opioid prescriptions dispensed, naloxone access, and drug poisonings. RESULTS: The POINT arm had a significant increase in MOUD prescriptions dispensed, non-MOUD prescriptions dispensed, and naloxone access (all p-values < 0.001). There was no significant effect related to subsequent drug poisoning-related hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the assertion that POINT is meeting its two primary goals related to increasing naloxone access and connecting patients to MOUD. Generalization of these results is limited; however, the evaluation contributes to a nascent area of research and can serve a foundation for future work.

New kid on the block: An investigation of the physical, operational, personnel, and service characteristics of recovery community centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Professional treatment and non-professional mutual-help organizations (MHOs) play important roles in mitigating addiction relapse risk. More recently, a third tier of recovery support services has emerged that are neither treatment nor MHO that encompass an all-inclusive flexible approach combining professionals and volunteers. The most prominent of these is Recovery Community Centers (RCCs). RCC's goal is to provide an attractive central recovery hub facilitating the accrual of recovery capital by providing a variety of services (e.g., recovery coaching; medication assisted treatment [MAT] support, employment/educational linkages). Despite their growth, little is known formally about their structure and function. Greater knowledge would inform the field about their potential clinical and public health utility. METHOD: On-site visits (2015-2016) to RCCs across the northeastern U.S. (K = 32) with semi-structured interviews conducted with RCC directors and online surveys with staff assessing RCCs': physicality and locality; operations and budgets; leadership and staffing; membership; and services. RESULTS: Physicality and locality: RCCs were mostly in urban/suburban locations (90%) with very good to excellent Walk Scores reflecting easy accessibility. Ratings of environmental quality indicated neighborhood/grounds/buildings were moderate-good attractiveness and quality. Operations: RCCs had been operating for an average of 8.5 years (SD = 6.2; range 1-33 years) with budgets (mostly state-funded) ranging from $17,000-$760,000/year, serving anywhere from a dozen to more than two thousand visitors/month. Leadership and staffing: Center directors were mostly female (55%) with primary drug histories of alcohol (62%), cocaine (19%), or opioids (19%). Most, but not all, directors (90%) and staff (84%) were in recovery. Membership: A large proportion of RCC visitors were male (61%), White (72%), unemployed (50%), criminal-justice system-involved (43%) and reported opioids (35%) or alcohol (33%) as their primary substance. Roughly half were in their first year of recovery (49%), but about 20% had five or more years. Services: RCCs reported a range of services including social/recreational (100%), mutual-help (91%), recovery coaching (77%), and employment (83%) and education (63%) assistance. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) support (43%) and overdose reversal training (57%) were less frequently offered, despite being rated as highly important by staff. CONCLUSIONS: RCCs are easily accessible, attractive, mostly state-funded, recovery support hubs providing an array of services to individuals in various recovery stages. They appear to play a valued role in facilitating the accrual of social, employment, housing, and other recovery capital. Research is needed to understand the relative lack of opioid-specific support and to determine their broader impact in initiating and sustaining remission and cost-effectiveness.

Inpatient link to peer recovery coaching: Results from a pilot randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Few individuals hospitalized with Substance Use Disorder (SUD) complications participate in recovery support services after discharge. Peer recovery coaching represents one potential new method for promoting recovery. METHODS: A six-month prospective randomized controlled trial compared outcomes between the standard of care and a physician-initiated recovery coaching intervention. The primary outcome measure was engagement in recovery support services, and the secondary outcome measures were substance use frequency and self-reported physical and mental health using the SF-12 survey. Participants (N = 98) were eligible if they were identified by a healthcare provider as having a SUD and were hospitalized due to SUD complications. RESULTS: Engagement rate over the six-month post-discharge time period was higher for participants in the recovery coaching intervention (84 %, 95 % CI: 78%-91%) compared to the standard of care control condition (34 %, 95 % CI: 25 %-44 %), log OR = 28.59, p < .001. No overall group differences in substance use frequency (p = .80), self-reported physical (p = .69) or mental (p = .89) health were observed. CONCLUSION: An inpatient linkage to recovery coaching services improves engagement rates and can feasibly be implemented in a single-center inpatient service. This intervention is promising for promoting both short-term and long-term engagement in recovery support services.

Lived Experience in New Models of Care for Substance Use Disorder: A Systematic Review of Peer Recovery Support Services and Recovery Coaching.

Peer recovery support services (PRSS) are increasingly being employed in a range of clinical settings to assist individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) and co-occurring psychological disorders. PRSS are peer-driven mentoring, education, and support ministrations delivered by individuals who, because of their own experience with SUD and SUD recovery, are experientially qualified to support peers currently experiencing SUD and associated problems. This systematic review characterizes the existing experimental, quasi-experimental, single- and multi-group prospective and retrospective, and cross-sectional research on PRSS. Findings to date tentatively speak to the potential of peer supports across a number of SUD treatment settings, as evidenced by positive findings on measures including reduced substance use and SUD relapse rates, improved relationships with treatment providers and social supports, increased treatment retention, and greater treatment satisfaction. These findings, however, should be viewed in light of many null findings to date, as well as significant methodological limitations of the existing literature, including inability to distinguish the effects of peer recovery support from other recovery support activities, heterogeneous populations, inconsistency in the definitions of peer workers and recovery coaches, and lack of any, or appropriate comparison groups. Further, role definitions for PRSS and the complexity of clinical boundaries for peers working in the field represent important implementation challenges presented by this novel class of approaches for SUD management. There remains a need for further rigorous investigation to establish the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-benefits of PRSS. Ultimately, such research may also help solidify PRSS role definitions, identify optimal training guidelines for peers, and establish for whom and under what conditions PRSS are most effective.