PATH to Reducing Burnout Among Peers Who Deliver Overdose Prevention Services (R61 Phase Pilot)
1 other identifier
interventional
18
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The investigators propose to develop and test the effectiveness of PATH (Peer Advanced Training for total Health) as an educational workforce intervention for improving peer recovery support specialists' (PRSS) overdose prevention (OP) service delivery ability and quality and as a PRSS workforce and service system support. The PATH intervention combines (a) virtual education and (b) case-based consultation. The investigators hypothesize that PATH will improve organizational-level PRSS burnout, additional workforce outcomes, and OP service quality.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for phase_2
Started Jan 2026
Shorter than P25 for phase_2
1 active site
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
September 30, 2025
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
October 20, 2025
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
January 12, 2026
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
May 8, 2026
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
May 8, 2026
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
October 2, 2026
CompletedOctober 2, 2026
September 1, 2026
4 months
September 30, 2025
August 10, 2026
September 9, 2026
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (4)
Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility
Measured using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), 12 validated items measuring participants' level of agreement (1/Completely disagree - 5/Completely agree) with the intervention's relevance, practicality, and fit for their work. Each of the three scales (AIM, IAM, and FIM) contains 4 questions and is scored by averaging responses. Each has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher perceived levels of Acceptability, Appropriateness, or Feasibility of the intervention.
At the conclusion of PATH eLearning modules, approximately 1 month post-baseline
Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility
Measured using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), 12 validated items measuring participants' level of agreement (1/Completely disagree - 5/Completely agree) with the intervention's relevance, practicality, and fit for their work. Each of the three scales (AIM, IAM, and FIM) contains 4 questions and is scored by averaging responses. Each has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher perceived levels of Acceptability, Appropriateness, or Feasibility of the intervention.
At the conclusion of PATH ECHO sessions, approximately 3 months post-baseline
Training Satisfaction
Measured using the Training Satisfaction Questionnaire, a custom 5-point Likert-scale (1/Totally disagree - 5/Totally agree) survey with 12-items assessing overall satisfaction with the learning experience, content relevance, and applicability to peer support practice. The questionnaire includes 3 sub-scales: Objectives and Content (3 items), Methods and Training Context (6 items), and Usefulness and Overall Rating (3 items). Each sub-scale is scored by averaging responses and has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of satisfaction with the training.
At the conclusion of PATH eLearning modules, approximately 1 month post-baseline
Training Satisfaction
Measured using the Training Satisfaction Questionnaire, a custom 5-point Likert-scale (1/Totally disagree - 5/Totally agree) survey with 12-items assessing overall satisfaction with the learning experience, content relevance, and applicability to peer support practice. The questionnaire includes 3 sub-scales: Objectives and Content (3 items), Methods and Training Context (6 items), and Usefulness and Overall Rating (3 items). Each sub-scale is scored by averaging responses and has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of satisfaction with the training.
At the conclusion of PATH ECHO sessions, approximately 3 months post-baseline
Secondary Outcomes (18)
Job Crafting
Baseline
Job Crafting
At the conclusion of PATH eLearning modules, approximately 1 month post-baseline
Job Crafting
At the conclusion of PATH ECHO sessions, approximately 3 months post-baseline
Overdose Prevention Knowledge, Attitudes, and Skills
Baseline
Overdose Prevention Knowledge, Attitudes, and Skills
At the conclusion of PATH eLearning modules, approximately 1 month post-baseline
- +13 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (1)
PATH pilot participants
EXPERIMENTALReceive PATH pilot intervention
Interventions
PATH is an educational workforce intervention for improving peer recovery support specialists' (PRSS) overdose prevention (OP) service delivery ability and quality and as a PRSS workforce and service system support. PATH will include 4 hours of eLearning modules completed within a 1-month period, as well as 8 weekly ECHO sessions lasting 1.5 hours each delivered over 2 months. Each ECHO session includes a 30-minute presentation followed by one hour of case-based discussion about a real client or problem. The entire PATH intervention will take 16 hours (4 hours of eLearning and 12 hours of ECHO participation) over 3 months. Participants are expected to complete all 16 hours, completing the 4 hours of eLearning before starting the 12 hours of ECHO activities.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- current PRSS staff or administrator employed by a partnering Recovery Community Organization (RCO)
- is at least 18 years of age.
You may not qualify if:
- none
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Chestnut Health Systemslead
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)collaborator
Study Sites (1)
Chestnut Health Systems Lighthouse Institute
Chicago, Illinois, 60610, United States
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Dennis Watson
- Organization
- Chestnut Health Systems
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Dennis P Watson, PhD
Chestnut Health Systems
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restrictive Agreement
- No
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 2
- Allocation
- NA
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
- Intervention Model
- SINGLE GROUP
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Senior Research Scientist
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
September 30, 2025
First Posted
October 20, 2025
Study Start
January 12, 2026
Primary Completion
May 8, 2026
Study Completion
May 8, 2026
Last Updated
October 2, 2026
Results First Posted
October 2, 2026
Record last verified: 2026-09
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
- Shared Documents
- STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF
- Access Criteria
- The study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and informed consent form will be made publicly available on Open Science Framework.
De-identified individual and aggregate PRSS survey data (raw and recoded) will be shared publicly after completing all data and analyses. Files will be shared in the format most relevant to the software used to develop them, as well as CSV files. De-identified qualitative transcripts will be maintained and shared only with an established data-sharing agreement. Files containing coding lists and summaries and transcript attributes will also be shared with appropriate agreements in place. Open sharing of qualitative data may risk identifying participants, particularly in small rural organizations where contextual details are difficult to mask. Standard protections, like de-identification and Certificates of Confidentiality, may be insufficient.