NCT03501732

Brief Summary

A key component of effective offender treatment is an initial assessment of risk factors followed by feedback to facilitate problem awareness and engagement in appropriate treatment and/or behavior change. Feedback regarding areas of high risk, however, can be experienced as threatening. The investigators propose to develop, fine-tune, and pilot-test a computerized system for risk assessment and feedback, including evaluation of a brief pre-feedback prosocial values affirmation exercise (Cohen \& Sherman, 2014) aimed at decreasing defensiveness and increasing inmates' willingness to access and process risk-relevant information and to utilize post-release treatment resources, thereby reducing post-release substance misuse, HIV risk behavior, and criminal recidivism. Participants will be 170 jail inmates nearing release into the community - 20 pilot participants and 150 study participants randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) Values Affirmation + Personalized Risk Feedback; (2) Personalized Risk Feedback only; (3) Control. The baseline and risk assessment, values affirmation manipulation, and personalized risk feedback will be presented via touch-screen computers, requiring minimal training to administer. Analyses will assess:

  1. 1.The feasibility of utilizing a computerized system to assess and share risk information with jail inmates, including a brief values affirmation exercise to reduce defensiveness;
  2. 2.The acceptability of this approach from the perspectives of jail staff and inmates themselves;
  3. 3.The impact of the intervention on observed proximal outcomes (mechanisms of action), such as time spent viewing feedback, electing to print a copy of informational and treatment resources, and consequent changes in perceptions of risk, treatability, etc.;
  4. 4.The impact of the intervention on key post-release outcomes including engagement in relevant treatment services, substance misuse, HIV risk behaviors, re-offense and re-arrest;
  5. 5.The links between proximal outcomes (MOAs) and key post-release outcomes;
  6. 6.Potential moderators of treatment effectiveness.

Trial Health

35
At Risk

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Trial has exceeded expected completion date
Enrollment
150

participants targeted

Target at P75+ for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Aug 2019

Status
unknown

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

March 27, 2018

Completed
22 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

April 18, 2018

Completed
1.4 years until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

August 27, 2019

Completed
7 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

April 1, 2020

Completed
4 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

August 1, 2020

Completed
Last Updated

August 8, 2019

Status Verified

August 1, 2019

Enrollment Period

7 months

First QC Date

March 27, 2018

Last Update Submit

August 6, 2019

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

  • Changes in substance use

    Changes in substance use -- among those who were identified at risk and who thus received feedback, pre-post incarceration changes in terms of pre-incarceration standard deviations. If more than one domain of feedback, average standard deviation change.

    3 months post-release (Time 2)

  • Changes in HIV risk behavior

    Changes in HIV risk behavior -- among those who were identified at risk and who thus received feedback, pre-post incarceration changes in terms of pre-incarceration standard deviations. If more than one domain of feedback (risky sex, risky needle use), average standard deviation change.

    3 months post-release (Time 2)

Secondary Outcomes (3)

  • Changes in accuracy of perceptions of normative risk behavior

    Immediately following intervention (Time 1)

  • Requests Community Resources

    Immediately following intervention (Time 1)

  • Makes Use of Community Resources

    3 months post-release (Time 2)

Study Arms (3)

Values Affirmation plus Risk Feedback

EXPERIMENTAL

Values Affirmation with Risk Feedback in substance use and HIV domains of risk

Behavioral: Values AffirmationBehavioral: Risk Feedback

Risk Feedback

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Sham Values Affirmation with Risk Feedback in substance use and HIV domains of risk

Behavioral: Risk Feedback

Sleep Control

NO INTERVENTION

Description of sleep habits in lieu of values affirmation/sham values affirmation. No risk feedback

Interventions

Experimental Group selects two values and describes why they are important

Values Affirmation plus Risk Feedback
Risk FeedbackBEHAVIORAL

Experimental and comparator conditions both receive normative feedback in domains of risk

Risk FeedbackValues Affirmation plus Risk Feedback

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Sufficient proficiency in spoken English to understand computer-assisted assessments and feedback
  • post-sentencing with a sentence (i.e., less than 12 months) likely to be served out at the jail (vs. a state or federal prison) and likely to be released into the community. The invitation to participate will be timed so treatment is delivered toward the end of incarceration (within one week of release) to minimize decay of effects, and to capitalize on the motivational value of the up-coming release.

You may not qualify if:

  • Those with detainers to other jurisdictions and to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Substance-Related Disorders

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Chemically-Induced DisordersMental Disorders

Study Officials

  • June P Tangney, PhD

    George Mason University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

June P Tangney, PhD

CONTACT

Jeffrey Stuewig, PhD

CONTACT

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER, INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
FACTORIAL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

March 27, 2018

First Posted

April 18, 2018

Study Start

August 27, 2019

Primary Completion

April 1, 2020

Study Completion

August 1, 2020

Last Updated

August 8, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-08

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will share

We will make the data and associated documentation available to researchers under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: (1) release of individually prepared datasets containing the subset of variables required to answer the requester's research question(s); (2) a commitment to using the data only for research purposes and not to attempt to identify any individual participant; (3) a commitment to securing the data using appropriate computer technology housed in a secure laboratory facility; and (4) a commitment to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed. Because of the exceptionally sensitive nature of the data, detailed criminal history and re-arrest information and self-reports of undetected criminal behavior will not be shared. Data requests will be accepted beginning 12 months after publication of the primary findings of the proposed project.

Shared Documents
STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, CSR, ANALYTIC CODE
Time Frame
Beginning 12 months after publication of the primary findings of the proposed project, for 5 years.
Access Criteria
Researchers who commit to using the data only for research purposes and not to attempt to identify any individual participant; who commit to securing the data using appropriate computer technology housed in a secure laboratory facility; and who commit to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed.