N/A N=100 Randomized Supportive Care

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

Substance Use

Bottom Line

View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03132753 ↗

Enrolled (actual)

100

Serious AEs

0.0%

Results posted

Oct 2020

Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use — 38; 45; 8; 9 Participants

Study Design & Population

Study type: Interventional
Phase: N/A
Interventions: SUPPORT (Behavioral)
Age: Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex: All
Sponsor: Indiana University
Primary completion: Jan 2020

Outcome Measures

Outcome	Result	p-value
PRIMARY Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use	13; 12; 0; 8; 10; 12	—
PRIMARY Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use	13; 12; 0; 8; 10; 12	—
PRIMARY Number of Participants Reporting Substance Use	13; 12; 0; 8; 10; 12	—
PRIMARY Difference in the Number of Days That Participants Reported Substance Use	0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in the Number of Days That Participants Reported Substance Use	0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in the Number of Days That Participants Reported Substance Use	0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in Readiness to Change	-5; -2.5; -4; -2; 0; -1	—
PRIMARY Difference in Readiness to Change	-5; -2.5; -4; -2; 0; -1	—
PRIMARY Difference in Readiness to Change	-5; -2.5; -4; -2; 0; -1	—
PRIMARY Difference in Quality of Life: Perceived General Health	0; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in Quality of Life: Perceived General Health	0; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in Quality of Life: Perceived General Health	0; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in Quality of Life: Unhealthy Days or Days Limited by Poor Health	-2; -2; -4; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in Quality of Life: Unhealthy Days or Days Limited by Poor Health	-2; -2; -4; 0	—
PRIMARY Difference in Quality of Life: Unhealthy Days or Days Limited by Poor Health	-2; -2; -4; 0	—
PRIMARY Frequency of Incarceration	30; 47; 16; 7	—
PRIMARY Frequency of Incarceration	30; 47; 16; 7	—
SECONDARY Difference in Self Determination	0.7; 0.5	—
SECONDARY Difference in Self Determination	0.7; 0.5	—
SECONDARY Difference in Self Determination	0.7; 0.5	—
SECONDARY Difference in Self Efficacy	4; 1	—
SECONDARY Difference in Self Efficacy	4; 1	—
SECONDARY Difference in Self Efficacy	4; 1	—
SECONDARY Difference in Number of Alters That Participants Identified in Their Social Network	0; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in Number of Alters That Participants Identified in Their Social Network	0; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network That Are Close to Subject	0.33; -0.07; -0.07; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network That Are Close to Subject	0.33; -0.07; -0.07; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Network Closeness Sum	0.5; 0.5	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Network Closeness Sum	0.5; 0.5	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Network Closeness Average	0.37; 0.33	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Network Closeness Average	0.37; 0.33	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Network Closeness Density	0.08; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Network Closeness Density	0.08; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Communicating With Subject	0.17; 0; 0; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Communicating With Subject	0.17; 0; 0; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Providing Support to the Subject	0; 0; 0; 0; 0.19; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Providing Support to the Subject	0; 0; 0; 0; 0.19; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Causing Subject Problems	-0.29; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Causing Subject Problems	-0.29; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Using Substance(s)	-0.04; 0; 0; -0.19; 0; 0	—
SECONDARY Difference in the Fraction of Network Using Substance(s)	-0.04; 0; 0; -0.19; 0; 0	—

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.

Eligibility 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.

View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03132753). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.