Leveraging Parents and Peer Recovery Supports to Increase Recovery Capital in Emerging Adults With Polysubstance Use: Protocol for a Feasibility, Acceptability, and Appropriateness Study of Launch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging adults (aged 18-26 years) are the most at-risk yet underserved age group among people with substance use disorder, especially rural emerging adults, and polysubstance use is common. Recovery capital is lower among emerging adults than older adults, and evidence-based treatments are typically unavailable or not developmentally tailored, especially in rural areas. Both supportive parents (or parental figures) and peer recovery support services (PRSS) can be leveraged to better support these emerging adults. Previous research indicates parents can be engaged to deliver contingency management (CM), an extensively researched evidence-based intervention for substance use. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a funded pilot of Launch, a novel, scalable service package that pairs web-based coaching for parents to deliver CM for emerging adults (CM-EA) at home and in-person PRSS with educational and vocational goal setting. Specifically, this protocol describes feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness testing (implementation-related outcomes) and steps taken to prepare for a future large-scale trial of Launch. METHODS: Upon the recruitment of 48 emerging adult and parent pairs from sites serving primarily rural clients, participants will be randomized into 1 of 3 conditions for this randomized controlled trial: virtual parent coaching to deliver CM-EA, in-person PRSS for emerging adults, or both sets of services. Emerging adult eligibility includes polysubstance use, a substance use disorder, and availability of a consenting parent. Emerging adults will be interviewed at baseline and 6 months about substance use, quality of life, recovery capital, parental relationship, and Launch implementation-related outcomes (6-month follow-up only). Parents, peer workers delivering PRSS, and parent CM-EA coaches will be interviewed about implementation-related outcomes at the end of the study period. Peer workers and CM-EA coaches will be asked to complete checklists of services delivered after each session. Finally, payers and providers will be interviewed for additional insights into Launch implementation and to identify key outcomes of Launch. Data analysis for emerging adult outcomes will be primarily descriptive, but parent CM-EA training adherence will be assessed using nested mixed-effects regression models of repeated measures. RESULTS: Launch is currently ongoing, with funding received in August 2023, and is expected to end in September 2025, with data analysis and results in December 2026. Participants are expected to begin enrolling in June 2024. CONCLUSIONS: While this pilot is limited by the small sample size and restriction to emerging adults with an involved parent, this is mitigated by the study's strengths and is appropriate for the pilot stage. Launch uses an innovative combination of existing strategies to generate better outcomes for emerging adults while remaining scalable. This pilot will provide insights into the feasibility and acceptability of Launch from the perspectives of service recipients, providers, and payers to inform a larger-scale effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06414993; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06414993. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/60671.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".