Contingency Management and SARS-CoV-2 Testing Among People Who Inject Drugs

• Published in: Public health reports (1974) 2022-05, Vol.137 (3), p.573-579
• Main Authors: Cioffi, Camille C., Kosty, Derek, Capron, Christopher G., Tavalire, Hannah F., Barnes, Robert C., Mauricio, Anne Marie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavior modification; Clients; Contingency; COVID-19; COVID-19 - diagnosis; COVID-19 - epidemiology; COVID-19 diagnostic tests; COVID-19 Testing; Disease control; Drug abuse; Drug Users; Drugs; Financial management; Health services; Humans; Implementation; Management; Morbidity; Needle exchange programs; Public health; Rewards; SARS-CoV-2; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; Substance Abuse, Intravenous - complications; Syringes; Viral diseases
• ISSN: 0033-3549; 1468-2877
• DOI: 10.1177/00333549221074385

Objectives: People who inject drugs (PWID) are especially vulnerable to morbidity and mortality as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection because of social and physical health vulnerabilities. Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is critical to reduce transmission. Contingency management—the provision of tangible rewards to reinforce positive behavior—can promote the use of health services among PWID. Evidence is scarce on the utility of contingency management to promote SARS-CoV-2 testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of contingency management to increase testing among PWID. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 testing was implemented at 9 syringe exchange program sites in partnership with an Oregon-based nonprofit organization for 5 weeks without contingency management and for 6 weeks with contingency management (a $10 financial incentive for testing) from February 1 through mid-April 2021. We measured rates of testing among syringe exchange program clients before and after implementation of contingency management. Results: Before contingency management, SARS-CoV-2 testing occurred during approximately 131 of 1410 (9.3%) client encounters, and 123 of 997 (12.3%) unique clients were tested. During contingency management, testing occurred during approximately 571 of 1756 (32.5%) client encounters, and 407 of 1151 (35.4%) unique clients were tested. Rates of testing increased from 0.04 (SD, 0.04) before contingency management implementation to 0.25 (SD, 0.15) after implementation (t8 = −3.88; P = .005; Cohen d = 1.46). Conclusions: Contingency management facilitated uptake of SARS-CoV-2 testing among PWID. Contingency management may be an effective strategy for improving communicable disease testing beyond testing for SARS-CoV-2 and for improving vaccine uptake among PWID and warrants additional research.