18 and older, any sex, with Opioid-use Disorder. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
CM Exposure (Implementation Outcome)Primary· From baseline to 9 months post-baseline
Provider-level measure of whether the provider delivered the target number of CM sessions (at least 10 sessions) to at least one patient based on based on electronic medical record review and data entered into a study-specific CM tracker tool for up to 25 charts per site (25 charts\*30 sites = 750 charts). Providers will report on patient encounters in the electronic medical record and the study-specific CM tracker tool, and for each encounter will report if CM was provided. Using patient level data, providers will be classified as 1 (delivered 10 or more sessions to at least 1 patient) or 0 (
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
18
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
31
Contingency Management Competence Scale for Reinforcing Attendance (Implementation Outcome)Primary· From baseline to 9 months post-baseline
Provider scores on the Contingency Management Competence Scale for Reinforcing Attendance (CMCS; Petry \& Ledgerwood, 2010). Coders blind to treatment condition rate audio recorded CM sessions using the CMCS, which measures provider skill in CM delivery. CMCS contains 6 CM-specific skill items and 3 general skill items that are scored on a scale from 0 to 7. For each item, a score of 0 indicates an audio recording was not submitted, a score of 1 indicates the lowest possible skill and a score of 7 indicates the highest possible skill. Possible scale scores range from a minimum of 0 to 63. An a
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
0.53
± 1.66
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
1.25
± 2.14
CM Sustainment (Implementation Outcome)Primary· 6-month time interval following Implementation time period
Proportion of programs delivering any CM after removal of active support. This is calculated based on review of all patient charts over a 6-month interval. Providers report on patient encounters in the medical record, and for each encounter report if CM was provided. Programs are classified as 1 (reported delivering CM to at least 1 patient) or 0 (did not deliver CM to any patients). The proportion of programs delivering CM is then calculated; a higher proportion is a better outcome.
\*The level at which CM Sustainment was assessed was altered from provider-level to program-level because of t
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
6
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
6
Opioid Abstinence: Past Month (Patient Outcome)Secondary· Assessed at 3 and 6-months from patient baseline assessment
Days of abstinence as reported using calendar-based recall based on the Timeline Followback Interview method (Sobell \& Sobell, 1992). Days of opioid abstinence will be calculated from 0 to 30 for each patient, with higher numbers indicating more days of abstinence (which is a better outcome). This will be calculated for all patients who complete follow-up.
3-months post baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
8.89
± 13.12
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
9.39
± 14.00
6-months post baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
10.15
± 16.33
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
8.33
± 14.70
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Opioid-Related Problem Scale: Past Month (Patient Outcome)Secondary· Assessed at 3 and 6-months from patient baseline assessment
Count of problems as reported using an adapted version of the Global Appraisal of Needs Substance Problems Scale (Dennis et al., 2002), which has been adapted to focus specifically on problems related to opioids. The scale contains 16 items that correspond to problems related to opioid use. Patients are asked the last time they had each problem with responses including past month, past year, lifetime, or never. A count of problems experienced over the past month will be calculated for each patient. The minimum possible score is 0 and the maximum possible score is 16. Higher scores indicate hig
3-months post baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
2.43
± 3.51
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
2.55
± 3.67
6-months post baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
2.24
± 3.47
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
2.17
± 3.69
Implementation Climate ScaleSecondary· From baseline to 9 months post baseline
Implementation climate scale (Jacobs et al., 2014). This scale contains 6 items scored on a 1 to 5 scale. An average score across the 6 items will be calculated per provider. Possible scores on this outcome range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a more positive implementation climate, which is a better outcome.
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
3.77
± 1.17
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
4.27
± 0.81
Leadership Engagement ScaleSecondary· From baseline to 9 months post baseline
Measure of leadership engagement (Garner, unpublished data). The scale contains 4 items scored on a 1 to 5 scale. An average perceived leadership engagement scale will be calculated for each provider. Possible scores on this outcome range from a minimum score of 1 to a maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher perceived leadership engagement, which is a better outcome.
Group
Value
95% CI
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
3.47
± 1.27
Enhanced ATTC (E-ATTC) Training Strategy
3.75
± 1.17
Adverse events — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Time frame: Adverse event data were collected as part of comprehensive follow-up assessments (twice over a 6-month period for patients and twice over a 9-month period for providers)..
Reporting threshold: 0%.
Adverse-event reports describe events observed during the trial — not all are caused by the drug.
Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Training
There is an urgent need for effective treatments for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). This study will train opioid treatment programs in an evidence-based behavioral treatment called contingency management (CM). Contingency management (i.e., motivational incentives for achieving pre-defined treatment goals) is one of the only behavioral interventions shown to improve patient treatment outcomes when combined with FDA-approved pharmacotherapy. Unfortunately, however, uptake of CM in opioid treatment programs remains low. In response to the urgent need for evidence-based behavioral OUD treatments, the investigators propose a large-scale type 3 hybrid trial comparing two comprehensive strategies to promote CM implementation as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy within opioid treatment programs. The control condition is the staff training strategy used by the New England Addiction Technology Transfer Center, which consists of didactic workshop, performance feedback, and staff coaching. The experimental condition is the ATTC strategy enhanced by external leadership coaching (using a model called Implementation Sustainment Facilitation; ISF) and provider incentives (using a model called Pay for Performance; P4P).
A cluster randomized design trial will be conducted with 30 opioid treatment programs across New England. Centers will be randomized to one of the two implementation conditions (ATTC vs. enhanced-ATTC) over the 5 year project. At each opioid treatment program, data will be collected at multiple intervals from CM treatment providers, organizational leaders, and newly admitted patients. Additionally, patient charts will be randomly selected for review to examine sustainment. Data collection will include electronic medical record review, ratings of audio recordings by staff blind to condition, well-validated measures, and provider weekly report of patient encounter data. Specific Aims of the study are to experimentally compare the effect of the two conditions on implementation outcomes (Primary Aim) and on patient outcomes (Secondary Aim). An Exploratory Aim is to test whether two organization-level variables (i.e., implementation climate, leadership engagement) partially mediate the relationship between implementation condition and the key study outcomes.
Publications & conference data
7 peer-reviewed publications reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):
NCT04783558 — Effective Caregiving for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Testing an Instructional Mobile Technology Platform for High-Risk
· NA
· active not recruiting
NCT05011266 — Efficacy of Buprenorphine and XR-Naltrexone Combination for Relapse Prevention in Opioid Use Disorder
· Phase 2, PHASE3
· recruiting
NCT05039554 — Randomized Trial of ACT and a Care Management App in Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Treatment
· NA
· recruiting
NCT04738825 — Promoting HIV Risk Reduction Among People Who Inject Drugs: A Stepped Care Approach Using Contingency Management With Pr
· NA
· recruiting
Other Brown University trials
Trials by the same sponsor.
NCT07502872 — TPG: Tafasitamab, Polatuzumab Vedotin, and Glofitamab as First-line Therapy for Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma and High-g
· Phase 2
· not yet recruiting
NCT07118618 — Probenecid Administration for Alcohol Craving and Consumption
· Phase 2
· recruiting
NCT07398443 — Using Novel Behavioral Economic Measures to Characterize Dual Marijuana and Tobacco Use in Young Adults
· NA
· recruiting
NCT05901766 — Effect of Iodine-containing Multiple Micronutrient During Lactation on Infant Neurodevelopment
· Phase 4
· not yet recruiting
Publications: Europe PMC API search by NCT ID, retrieved 10 June 2026
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Brown University
Last refreshed: 19 March 2025
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT03931174.