Implementing contingency management into rural recovery housing: recommendations of a professional advisory expert panel.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Implementing contingency management into rural recovery housing: recommendations of a professional advisory expert panel.
Authors:	Ledgerwood, David M. (AUTHOR), Stott, Milena C. (AUTHOR), Quesada, Stacey (AUTHOR), Sontag, Marci (AUTHOR), Beck, Rachel M. (AUTHOR), McDonell, Michael G. (AUTHOR), Johnson, David (AUTHOR), DePhilippis, Dominick (AUTHOR), Donnelly, Sherrie (AUTHOR), Hartzler, Bryan (AUTHOR), Nauts, Tammera (AUTHOR), Novak, Matthew D. (AUTHOR), Peck, James A. (AUTHOR), Rash, Carla J. (AUTHOR)
Source:	American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse. 2024, Vol. 50 Issue 6, p831-840. 10p.
Subjects:	Rural Americans, Rural housing, Substance abuse, Rural health, Housing management, Contingency management
Abstract:	Background: Rural areas in the United States have been severely impacted by recent rises in substance use related mortality and psychosocial consequences. There is a dearth of treatment resources to address substance use disorder (SUD). Rural recovery houses (RRH) are important services that provide individuals with SUD with an environment where they can engage in recovery-oriented activities, but dropout rates are unacceptably high, and evidence-based interventions such as contingency management (CM) may reduce dropout and improve outcomes for RRH residents. In this paper, we describe the results of a national convening of experts that addressed important issues concerning the implementation of CM within the context of RRHs. Methods: Twelve experts (five female) in the areas of CM, RRH and rural health participated in a one-day facilitated meeting that used nominal group technique to identify expert consensus in three areas as they pertain to RRH: (a) facilitators and barriers to CM implementation, (b) elements necessary for successful program building based on group feedback, and (c) recommendations for future implementation of CM. Results: Several RRH- and system-level barriers and facilitators to implementing CM were identified by the panel, and these were categorized based on the level of importance for and ease of implementation. CM funding, staff and resident buy-in, set policies, education on CM, and consistent fidelity to CM procedures and tracking were identified as important requirements for implementing CM in RRH. Conclusions: We provide recommendations for the implementation of CM in RRH that may be useful in this context, as well as more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Background: Rural areas in the United States have been severely impacted by recent rises in substance use related mortality and psychosocial consequences. There is a dearth of treatment resources to address substance use disorder (SUD). Rural recovery houses (RRH) are important services that provide individuals with SUD with an environment where they can engage in recovery-oriented activities, but dropout rates are unacceptably high, and evidence-based interventions such as contingency management (CM) may reduce dropout and improve outcomes for RRH residents. In this paper, we describe the results of a national convening of experts that addressed important issues concerning the implementation of CM within the context of RRHs. Methods: Twelve experts (five female) in the areas of CM, RRH and rural health participated in a one-day facilitated meeting that used nominal group technique to identify expert consensus in three areas as they pertain to RRH: (a) facilitators and barriers to CM implementation, (b) elements necessary for successful program building based on group feedback, and (c) recommendations for future implementation of CM. Results: Several RRH- and system-level barriers and facilitators to implementing CM were identified by the panel, and these were categorized based on the level of importance for and ease of implementation. CM funding, staff and resident buy-in, set policies, education on CM, and consistent fidelity to CM procedures and tracking were identified as important requirements for implementing CM in RRH. Conclusions: We provide recommendations for the implementation of CM in RRH that may be useful in this context, as well as more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00952990
DOI:	10.1080/00952990.2024.2387725