Methadone Patient Access to Collaborative Treatment: Protocol for a Pilot and a Randomized Controlled Trial to Establish Feasibility of Adoption and Impact on Methadone Treatment Delivery and Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to methadone treatment can reduce opioid overdose death by up to 60%, but US patient outcomes are suboptimal. Federally allowed methadone treatment accommodations during the COVID-19 public health emergency were not widely adopted. It is likely that staff-level characteristics such as trauma symptoms influence the adoption of treatment innovation. OBJECTIVE: Methadone Patient Access to Collaborative Treatment (MPACT) is a 2-phased project (pilot and field trial) to develop and test a staff-level, multimodal intervention to increase staff adoption of low-barrier, patient-centered methadone treatment practices and ultimately improve treatment retention and patient outcomes. METHODS: A pilot and national trial will measure implementation feasibility, acceptability, and effects of the MPACT intervention on treatment practice change, clinic culture, patient retention, and patient posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). The pilot will be a single-arm 5.5-month pilot study of MPACT conducted in 2 Arizona methadone treatment clinics (rural and urban) among 100 patients and 22 staff. The national trial will be a 20-month cluster randomized trial conducted among 30 clinics, 600 patients (20 per clinic), and 480 staff (18 per clinic). Data will be gathered by staff and patient surveys and patient chart review. The primary study outcome is increased patient methadone treatment retention measured as (1) time to first treatment interruption from study enrollment; (2) active in treatment at enrollment, day 30, 60, 90, and 120; and (3) continuous days in treatment during the study period. Secondary study outcomes include reductions in vicarious trauma and PTSS among enrolled opioid treatment program staff and PTSS among enrolled patients. RESULTS: The pilot study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (award R61DA059889, funded September 2023), and the field trial will be funded under the associated R33 mechanism in September 2025. The pilot study was completed in March 2025. The randomized controlled trial will begin in December 2025. Both the pilot and trial have been approved by the University of Arizona Human Subjects Protection Program and have been registered with the clinical trials network. CONCLUSIONS: The MPACT study will provide a foundation for an evidence-based, staff-level intervention aimed at improving patient retention in methadone treatment. Future studies should examine the individual components of MPACT to determine their differential contributions to the primary outcome of patient methadone treatment retention and to secondary outcomes of staff and patient reduction in stress symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06513728; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06513728 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06556602; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06556602. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/69829.
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 | 0.046 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.016 |
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".