Abstract
Understanding conditions in which interventions succeed or fail is critical. The PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial, a cluster-randomized hybrid study, tested whether implementation of office-based addiction treatment supported by a nurse increased medication of OUD. Six health systems each provided two primary care (PC) clinics that were randomly assigned to implement the intervention or usual care. This secondary, exploratory study used an innovative mixed methods approach to understand contextual factors that consistently distinguished intervention clinics that increased OUD treatment from those that did not.
The study collected contextual information through field notes, health system debriefs, and nurse interviews. Rapid qualitative analysis using a template based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model identified themes reflecting the external environment, recipients, and implementation infrastructure. The study used qualitative themes to create binary factors reflecting barriers and facilitators potentially critical to implementation success and assigned clinics a factor value of 1 if present and 0 if absent. Two clinic-level outcomes were defined: 1) significant increase in patient-years of OUD treatment from baseline to two-year follow-up; and 2) high rate of OUD treatment at two-year follow-up (≥20 per 10,000 patient-years). Coincidence analysis, a cross-case configurational method, identified difference-makers for both OUD outcomes across intervention clinics.
Qualitative analysis yielded 11 themes which were dichotomized and consolidated into 9 factors. Two factor values perfectly distinguished between intervention clinics with and without increased OUD treatment (outcome #1): (a) presence of strong support from PC staff and providers and (b) lack of OUD treatment in the community. Intervention clinics increased OUD treatment when either factor value was present; when both were absent, clinics did not increase treatment. Strong support from PC staff and providers was independently sufficient to achieve high rates of OUD treatment (outcome #2) while the absence of support explained low rates of treatment. Importantly, strong support from leadership was not sufficient for either outcome.
Strong support from staff and providers consistently differentiated between clinics with increased OUD treatment across both outcomes in the PROUD trial from those without. OUD programs should consider increasing support across clinic roles.