Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington , Seattle , Washington , USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle , Washington , USA.
Subst Abus. 2019;40(2):214-220. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1572051. Epub 2019 Mar 4.
Counselor workforce turnover is a critical area of concern for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers and researchers. To facilitate the adoption and implementation of innovative treatments, attention must be paid to how SUD treatment workforce issues affect the implementation of clinical effectiveness research. Multiple variables have been shown to relate to turnover, yet reasons that are specific to conducting research have not been systematically assessed. In a randomized clinical trial testing a sexual risk reduction counselor training intervention, 69 counselors at 4 outpatient SUD treatment sites (2 opioid treatment programs [OTPs], 2 psychosocial) were enrolled and randomized to 1 of 2 training conditions (Standard vs. Enhanced). Study counselor and agency turnover rates were calculated. Agency context and policies that impacted research participation were examined. Study turnover rates for enrolled counselors were substantial, ranging from 33% to 74% over approximately a 2-year active study period. Study counselor turnover was significantly greater at outpatient psychosocial programs versus OTPs. Counselor turnover did not differ due to demographic or training condition assignment. Leaving agency employment was the most typical reason for study counselor turnover. This secondary analysis used data from a multisite study with frontline counselors to provide a qualitative description of challenges faced when conducting effectiveness research in SUD treatment settings. That counselors may be both subjects and deliverers of the interventions studied in clinical trials, with implications for differential impact on study implementation, is highlighted. We offer suggestions for researchers seeking to implement effectiveness research in SUD clinical service settings.
咨询师流失是物质使用障碍(SUD)治疗提供者和研究人员关注的一个关键领域。为了促进创新治疗方法的采用和实施,必须关注 SUD 治疗人员问题如何影响临床效果研究的实施。已经有多个变量被证明与离职有关,但与进行研究相关的具体原因尚未得到系统评估。在一项测试性传播风险降低咨询师培训干预的随机临床试验中,4 个门诊 SUD 治疗地点(2 个阿片类药物治疗项目[OTP],2 个心理社会)的 69 名咨询师被招募并随机分配到 2 种培训条件之一(标准与增强)。计算了研究咨询师和机构的离职率。研究了影响研究参与的机构背景和政策。参与研究的咨询师离职率很高,在大约 2 年的活跃研究期间,离职率从 33%到 74%不等。门诊心理社会项目的研究咨询师离职率明显高于 OTP。咨询师离职率与人口统计学或培训条件分配无关。离开机构就业是研究咨询师离职的最常见原因。这项二次分析使用了来自一个多地点研究的一线咨询师的数据,为在 SUD 治疗环境中进行效果研究所面临的挑战提供了定性描述。强调了咨询师可能既是临床试验中研究干预措施的对象,也是其实施者,这对研究实施的影响存在差异。我们为希望在 SUD 临床服务环境中实施效果研究的研究人员提供了建议。