Training community members to deliver an intervention for substance use disorder: Overcoming implementation barriers in American Indian communities

Monica C Skewes,Vivian M Gonzalez,Amy Stix

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.josat.2024.209541

Abstract:Introduction: Although American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people have high rates of abstinence from alcohol and other drugs, there also is evidence of greater rates of substance use disorders (SUDs) in Native communities. Health disparities associated with substance use are compounded by inadequate access to evidence-based treatments (EBTs). Lack of mental health providers is one notable barrier to EBT implementation in rural AI reservation communities. Our Indigenous Recovery Planning (IRP) intervention merges cultural lessons and culturally adapted relapse prevention strategies to facilitate SUD recovery in the reservation environment. One key implementation strategy is training non-specialist community-based facilitators to deliver IRP, thereby increasing its acceptability and sustainability. This manuscript reports the facilitator training, supervision, and fidelity monitoring procedures used in our ongoing clinical trial of IRP. Method: The study recruited four AI non-specialist providers from the community to serve as IRP facilitators. Initial training involved an introductory motivational interviewing workshop followed by a 2-day workshop in the IRP curriculum. Then we conducted an open trial of the 6-week intervention with weekly supervision meetings as part of the facilitator training process. During the open trial we also assessed participant and facilitator receptivity to the IRP intervention and pilot tested our fidelity monitoring protocol. Results: The initial training workshops provided facilitators with information they needed to understand the rationale behind IRP and determine whether the facilitator role was a good fit; however, additional training and supervision during the open trial was needed to ensure proper treatment delivery. Although participant and facilitator feedback ratings were positive, the open trial helped us identify revisions needed to improve our approach to facilitator training, supervision, and fidelity monitoring. We revised these procedures, and also developed a protocol to train new facilitators who join the study midstream. Conclusion: The open trial was an important aspect of the facilitator training process and helped our team identify several areas of improvement. Our approach to training, supervising, and monitoring community member facilitators may serve as an example of how to overcome one barrier to implementing evidence-based SUD treatments in rural reservation communities with few mental health professionals.