Table 2 Clinical trials of linkage interventions
First author and year, country (city) | Conditions | Sample description and N | Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bråbäck 2016, Sweden (Malmo) [40] | Intervention arm: Case management plus referral Comparison arm: Referral alone | People with OUD enrolled in a single SSP (N = 75) | % entering methadone or buprenorphine treatment | 95% Case management intervention vs. 94% control (NS) |
Kidorf 2005, USA (Baltimore) [36] | Intervention arm: Motivational Interviewing plus referral Comparison arms: 1) Attention control (job readiness (JR) training) 2) Standard Referral (SR) | People with OUD newly registering in a single SSP (n = 302) | % enrolling in (a) any treatment enrollment or (b) methadone treatment | (a) Any treatment: MI vs. JR vs. SR (10% vs. 13% vs. 10%, NS) (b) Methadone: MI vs. JR vs. SR (8% vs. 10% vs. 9%, NS) |
Kidorf 2009, USA (Baltimore) [35] | Intervention arms: 1) Motivational referral condition (MRC) 2) MRC + financial incentives (MRC + I) Comparison arm: Standard referral condition (SRC) | People with OUD newly registering in a single SSP (n = 281) | % enrolling in (a) any treatment or (b) methadone treatment | (a) Any treatment: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (52.1% vs. 31.9% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.01) (b) Methadone: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (40.4% vs. 20.2% vs. 16.1%; p < 0.01) |
Kidorf 2011, USA (Baltimore) [38] | Same RCT as Kidorf 2009 Intervention arms: 1) Motivational referral condition (MRC) 2) MRC + financial incentives (MRC + I) Comparison arm: Standard referral condition (SRC) | RCT participants from Kidorf 2009 who enrolled in any SUD treatment within 4 months of SSP enrollment (N = 113) | % restarting (a) any treatment or (b) methadone treatment after stopping treatment | (a) Any treatment: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (64.4% vs. 28.0% vs. 37.0%; p < 0.01) (b) Methadone: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (44.4% vs. 12.0% vs. 3.7% SRC; p < 0.01) |
Kidorf 2012, USA (Baltimore) [39] | Same RCT at Kidorf 2009 Intervention arms: 1) Motivational referral condition (MRC) 2) MRC + financial incentives (MRC + I) Comparison arm: Standard referral condition (SRC) | RCT participants from Kidorf 2009 (N = 281) | % enrolling in (a) any treatment or (b) methadone treatment enrollment; (c) days of heroin use per month at 12 months | (a) Any treatment: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (62.8% vs 52.1% vs. 50.5%, NS) (b) Methadone: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (46.8% vs. 24.7% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.01) (c) Heroin use days: MRC + I vs. MRC vs. SRC (18.1 (0.84) vs. 24.1 (0.85) vs. 23.5 (0.88); p < 0.01) |
Strathdee 2006, USA (Baltimore) [37] | Intervention arm: Strength based case management (SBCM) Comparison arm: passive referral | SSP participants who sought SUD treatment (N = 245) | % enrolling in treatment (methadone or levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM)) within 7 days of referral | 40% in SBCM vs. 26% of passive referral (p = 0.03) |
Havens 2007, USA, (Baltimore) [44] | Same RCT as Strathdee 2006 Intervention arm: Strength based case management (SBCM) Comparison arm: passive referral | RCT participants from Strathdee 2006 who completed 1 month follow up visit (N = 162) | Association of anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) with treatment entry (methadone or levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM)) within 7 days of referral | AOR for treatment entry among participants with ASPD: 3.51 (1.04–11.9) |
Fox 2017, USA (NYC) [41] | Single arm trial: single SSP received intensive multi-component staff training in buprenorphine linkage | N = 76 SSP participants N = 22 SSP staff members trained | % enrolling in buprenorphine treatment pre- and post-intervention | Pre-intervention: 4% vs Post-intervention: 0%, NS |