Researchers worked with 266 participants in four FQHCs in Chicago, recruited between 2017 and 2020, who had moderate to high scores on an alcohol or drug screening test. Participants were predominantly male (65%) and African American (81%). In the past year, almost half had experienced homelessness, and fewer than half had been employed; most had problems related to physical and mental health and stress. All participants were referred for treatment. They were randomized to receive either SBIRT only or SBIRT followed by RMC. They were assessed at the start of the study and three, six, nine, and 12 months later. Those in the RMC group received personalized feedback and guidance using motivational interviewing and reinforcement of abstinence or support with reduced use and treatment. Urine testing initially confirmed the broad accuracy of participants’ reports, though it was discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigators used statistical analysis to explore associations between the two intervention approaches and rates of treatment and substance use.
Quarterly checkups were associated with significant improvements in treatment initiation and reduced use of alcohol and cannabis, the most common substances. Over 12 months, participants assigned to SBIRT + RMC were more likely to attend treatment (61%) and received more days of treatment (mean 54 days) than those receiving SBIRT only (33%; mean 27 days). Those receiving RMC also reported, on average, more days of abstinence (173 compared to 140) and fewer days of alcohol and cannabis use, and had lower alcohol and drug use severity scores. More days of treatment was shown to be the mechanism for more days of abstinence. The use of opioids (e.g., heroin) and stimulants (e.g., cocaine) did not differ between the two groups, however.
The study confirmed the value of using RMC to improve patients’ linkage to treatment following SBIRT at FHQCs and demonstrated the added value of three subsequent checkups over 12 months. Among high-need populations, repeated assessments and connections to treatment may be a necessary element of care. More research is needed on the cost-effectiveness of RMC, which populations benefit most, and the real-world sustainability and scalability of the intervention.
A randomized controlled trial of recovery management checkups for primary care patients: Twelve-month results. C. Scott, M. Dennis, C. Grella, D. Watson, J. Davis, M. Hart. (pp xxx)
ACER–23–5643.R1