Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JMIR Formative Research logoLink to JMIR Formative Research
. 2025 Sep 23;9:e67401. doi: 10.2196/67401

The Development of a Patient-Centered Digital Health Care Technology for Young Adults in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: Qualitative Study

Karen Alexander 1,✉, Madison Scialanca 1
Editor: Amaryllis Mavragani
PMCID: PMC12456843  PMID: 40986795

Abstract

Background

Young adults, defined as individuals between the ages of 18 and 29 years, drop out of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment more often than older adults. Premature treatment drop-out substantially increases fatal overdose risk. Self-monitoring through text messaging has been researched extensively among people with OUD to identify drop-out risk factors. Self-monitoring could potentially improve methadone treatment engagement among young adults, who are a population that is both hard to reach and more likely to use technology compared to older adults. Self-monitoring can increase risk factor awareness and help patients and counselors develop targeted coping strategies and treatment plans. However, embedding a discussion of risk factor information into existing counseling sessions has been limited and may offer a promising opportunity to improve engagement among young adults.

Objective

This pilot proof-of-concept study examined the implementation of self-monitoring intervention, AWARE (Awareness and Response to the Environment), designed to bring attention to treatment drop-out risk factors among young adults and create discussion about risk factors with their existing treatment counselor.

Methods

In this formative research, a convenience sample (N=8) of young adults (n=3, 38%) in methadone treatment, their counselors (n=3, 38%), and clinic leadership (n=2, 25%) were recruited from an opioid treatment program after referral from treatment staff. Participants were interviewed to obtain feedback as AWARE was developed. In semistructured interviews, perspectives regarding barriers to treatment for young adults and AWARE utility were obtained. Concurrently, 3 dyads of young adults (n=3, 38%) and counselors (n=3, 38%) piloted the intervention daily for 4 weeks.

Results

The 3 consented young adults with OUD participants (n=2, 67% female; n=2, 67% Latino/a) were sent daily surveys for 28 days (53% overall completion rate). Young adults and counselors found AWARE relevant to their treatment experience and acceptable to complete over 4 weeks. The most reported daily stressors included concerns about the health and well-being of a family member, challenges with staying organized, and feeling overwhelmed by responsibilities without adequate support. In qualitative interviews, counselors and clinic leadership reported that AWARE presented a relevant, new way to engage young adults daily, in addition to weekly counseling sessions. Young adults felt that prompts sent by AWARE offered a type of social support they lacked, like “someone checking in on them.”

Conclusions

Overall, young adult and counselor participants were able to engage in AWARE in a busy clinic environment, and participants and clinic leadership found it valuable. By addressing common stressors and providing a sense of social connection, AWARE may help fill a gap in support between counseling sessions. However, the study was limited by the small number of young adults engaging in methadone treatment. Further research is needed to refine the measures and methods of AWARE and evaluate its effectiveness.

Introduction

Background

Young adults, aged 18‐29 years, have the highest opioid use rate per capita [1]. Despite the efficacy of medications (eg, methadone and buprenorphine) to prevent morbidity and mortality related to opioid use, young adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) are less likely to initiate treatment [2,3] and more likely to drop out of treatment [4] compared to older age groups. A personalized behavioral treatment responsive to the individual needs of young adults may increase retention by addressing coping skills associated with young adults with OUD stressors and thoughts of leaving treatment [5-8].

Addressing Risk Factors Through Ecological Momentary Assessment

The scientific understanding of risk assessment in a real-world context has been advanced by ecological momentary assessment (EMA) research methods [9,10]. EMA is a data collection technique requiring frequent self-monitoring of symptoms, thoughts, and social interactions, enabling the identification of unfolding patterns of mental states and behavior [11]. Self-monitoring through text messaging (an EMA method) has been used extensively among people with OUD to identify treatment drop-out risk factors through pattern recognition [12-17].

People with OUD have differing retention trajectories based on levels of stress [18,19]. The variability of stress, not the averages at points in time, best predicts craving and future opioid use [20]. According to self-management and cognitive relapse prevention theories, greater attention to and awareness of mental states may lead to improvements [21,22]. Drop-out risk factors like stress may normally be unconscious to a person, but self-monitoring can bring them to the forefront and, thus, increase the opportunity for the patient and counselor to develop more specific plans, coping strategies, and more control [23]. It is likely that automatic responses to stress, when brought to cognitive awareness, become easier to address and extinguish [24].

Previous research has incorporated EMA data within OUD treatment to engage participants through text messages to remind participants of appointments [25], mobile health (mHealth) applications to deliver therapy [26-28], and web-based software to access and deliver cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) [29]. However, few digital interventions are described in the literature that incorporate EMA data into counseling sessions within an existing opioid treatment program (OTP). Integrating real-time patient-generated data at the point of care has the potential for a significant impact by informing risk assessment and augmenting existing treatment.

Study Purpose

The present study developed and pilot-tested an intervention tailored for young adults with OUD called Awareness and Response to the Environment (AWARE). AWARE used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap; Vanderbilt University) software to send EMA surveys on a study-provided phone, collecting patient-generated data on antecedents of treatment drop-out that could be integrated into weekly counseling sessions. The purpose of this paper is to (1) describe the use of AWARE by young adults with OUD and treatment staff, (2) detail the perceived barriers and facilitators of treatment engagement, and (3) describe how AWARE may address identified barriers. This pilot, proof-of-concept project will lay the foundation for a future clinical trial of AWARE.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework for AWARE draws from self-management and cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention theories, which are applied to the retention stage of the OUD Cascade of Care [30]. To target improvements in the retention stage, self-efficacy beliefs (“I’m going to the clinic today”) and adherence (“I received medication today”) to medication are crucial [31,32]. Interventions underpinned by self-management theory in HIV and substance use research have shown success in increasing medication receipt and adherence [33,34]. Self-management theory emphasizes that improvements in self-efficacy beliefs can result in better decision-making and intention to adhere to healthy behaviors [33-35]. Cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention theory demonstrates that relapse (defined as a setback in progressing toward recovery) is not a binary event but, rather, a dynamic, fluctuating process (see Figure 1) [7,26]. The rationale for integrating these 2 theories stems from the utility of self-management–based interventions in chronic disease and the chronic, relapsing nature of addiction [34,36]. Improved self-management skills for someone with OUD may prevent future relapses but also could improve daily cravings, negative mood, and stress, which may reflect a greater benefit to an individual than abstinence from drugs alone [37]. These personal benefits may also positively reinforce treatment adherence, thereby making the work of recovery more appealing to participants [38].

Figure 1. Integration of AWARE components with theoretical frameworks. AWARE: Awareness and Response to the Environment; EMA: ecological momentary assessment.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Methods

Setting and Design

Young adults with OUD and treatment staff recruitment took place at an urban, Northeastern United States OTP that offers methadone or buprenorphine and individual and group counseling informed by CBT, using the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) CBT manual [39]. Each incoming patient receives an individual counselor with a caseload of 25‐30 patients. The OTP treated 426 patients in 2023 for OUD with either methadone (93%) or buprenorphine (7%). Approximately 10% of the patient population were young adults in 2023. The program does not currently use patient-centered digital health care technology. Medications administered and dispensed, as well as doses and drug screening results, are recorded in an electronic health record (EHR). Urine samples are obtained randomly at least twice per month, and patients are not discharged for drug use alone. Rather, continued opioid or other drug use may impact clinical decisions regarding take-home medication, dosage, and counseling approaches. Reasons for discharge are noted in the EHR. During our pilot study, we capitalized on already existing resources, including existing counselors, to adapt AWARE into the opioid treatment center structure. This study used a qualitative approach, which is appropriate for formative work. This article adheres to the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) regarding key data collection and analysis aspects.

AWARE Intervention

AWARE was developed as a self-monitoring, mobile phone–based intervention that couples EMA surveys with counselor feedback during weekly CBT sessions. The goal of AWARE is to augment standard care, which includes medication, through identifying and responding to high-risk events or situations known to predict drop-out. The EMA structure, content, and timing in this project are informed by longitudinal studies that sought to predict early treatment dropout using EMA [18,40-46,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined]. For this pilot study, the Daily Hassles Survey [18], a list of external stressors, was used to identify stressors particular to young adults with OUD. Weekly data summaries were provided to the participant and their counselor via email (see Table 1).

Table 1. Awareness and Response to the Environment intervention integration of EMA data into counseling sessions for young adults with opioid use disorder.

Participation and roles of participant and counselor Activities Theoretical construct
Participant (daily) self-monitors via EMA,
views dashboard,
real-world practice of skills		 Identifies and examines thoughts, symptoms, triggers of drop-out; practices coping skills; practices problem solving Self-efficacy, self-regulation, patient activation; coping, relapse or drop-out prevention; self-efficacy, relapse prevention;
Study counselor (weekly) views dashboard, analyzes patterns Identifies and examines thoughts, symptoms, triggers of drop-out; identifies contextual issues affecting intention to stay in treatment; teaches and leads rehearsal of coping skills (emotional and trigger coping); engages in problem solving Self-efficacy, self-regulation; self-efficacy, self-regulation; coping, relapse or drop-out prevention; coping, relapse, or drop-out prevention
Open in a new tab

Eligibility Criteria

The study recruited young adults with OUD who were (1) aged 18‐29 years, (2) receiving counseling during OUD treatment, and (3) English speaking. We excluded young adults with OUD if they exhibited (1) active suicidal ideation and/or (2) active psychosis. Inclusion criteria for treatment provider/staff interviews included (1) counselors with a client enrolled in AWARE or (2) clinic leadership.

Recruitment and Screening Procedures

The research assistant approached eligible young adults with OUD participants during dosing, asking them if they would like to participate in a study regarding a mobile phone–based intervention. The research assistant then obtained written informed consent and conducted the baseline interview. Participants were then oriented to the EMA survey procedures. Treatment center staff were recruited at a kick-off breakfast event at the treatment center. Staff provided verbal consent to the interviews before their interview began. Of the 14 young adult clients enrolled in the opioid treatment program, 8 were contacted and the research team never received a response; 3 were discharged from the treatment center before contact could be made, and 3 were successfully enrolled.

Measures

All study participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire at baseline. In addition, young adults with OUD participants completed the daily stressors questionnaire. Qualitative interviews were performed using a semistructured guide before and after AWARE implementation. All participants were asked key questions regarding perceived barriers to treatment for young adults with OUD and the utility of AWARE in improving treatment engagement. Suggestions for improvement, as well as content or delivery methods, were obtained. Participants received a US$50 gift card upon completion of the qualitative interview. Young adults with OUD participants were paid US$50 in cash at the beginning and end of the AWARE intervention, and they also received a study phone if desired.

Data Analysis

Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis methods: generating initial codes, searching, reviewing, defining, and naming subthemes, and identifying basic and global themes. The research team consisted of a master’s level Research Assistant and a PhD-prepared nurse scientist, each with extensive research and clinical experience working with young adults with OUD. Transcripts were reviewed independently by a master’s prepared research assistant and a PhD-prepared investigator using rigorous and accelerated qualitative data reduction (RADaR) and content analysis [47]. A series of spreadsheets was created to produce short, concise data tables. From the discussion of these tables, a consensus was reached on the content and relevance of themes identified. The identified daily stressors were tabulated using frequency of identification and ranked from most identified to least identified.

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by both WCG Institutional Review Board and the City of Philadelphia Department of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB# 2024-07). We obtained written, informed consent from all patient participants and verbal consent from the counselor and clinic leadership to be interviewed. All study data were deidentified before analysis. Participants were assigned unique study IDs, and no identifying information (eg, names, addresses, and phone numbers) was stored with survey or interview responses. Data collected through electronic platforms (eg, REDCap) were stored on secure, password-protected cloud-based storage systems compliant with institutional and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards. Access to identifiable data was restricted to key research personnel and monitored through audit logs. All qualitative interview recordings were transcribed with identifying details removed and securely deleted after transcription. Findings are reported in aggregate form to ensure individual confidentiality. Patient and staff participants were paid US$50 for completing baseline and follow-up interviews at the beginning and end of the 4-week intervention period.

Results

Overview

The 3 consented young adult participants with OUD (n=2, 67% female; n=2, 67% Latino/a) were sent daily surveys for 28 days (53% overall completion rate), and only 2 young adult participants with OUD finished the study. All 3 counselors received a weekly data summary. Young adults with OUD and counselor ratings of the usability of the platform were favorable; all agreed with statements that the daily surveys were clinically useful, easy to navigate, and relevant to the treatment experience. The young adults with OUD and treatment center staff interviews centered on the previously identified themes of treatment engagement stressors and barriers and the feasibility and usability of AWARE to promote treatment engagement.

Participant Characteristics

Three young adult participants with OUD consented to participate in the study. The first participant was a Latina woman, aged 27 years, living in her own home with her partner and child. The second participant was a Latino man living in a family member’s house. The third participant was a Black woman experiencing ongoing homelessness; however, she was lost to follow-up after responding to one week of surveys. All participants received a study phone to complete the AWARE surveys.

Five treatment center staff were recruited. All but one of the counselors had less than 6 years of experience as a drug and alcohol counselor. One clinic administrator had over 20 years of experience working in therapy within opioid treatment programs. Two treatment center staff identified as Black, one identified as Asian, and 2 identified as White. Treatment center staff interviewed primarily identified as women, except for one man.

Treatment Engagement Stressors and Barriers for Young Adults

Over the 28-day period, young adults with OUD most frequently reported stressors related to family-related obligations (10 responses), having to do things without help (9 responses), and being organized (9 responses). Other common stressors included the health of a family member, physical care, and medical abilities (each 8 responses). In contrast, children, partners, and boredom (“having enough to do”) were reported least often (0–3 responses). Overall, stressors spanned family, financial, health, and daily-life domains, with practical and relational demands emerging as the most prominent. In qualitative interviews, 2 young adults with OUD participants identified “not having much to do” and not having any social connections outside of the clinic as a frequent stressor. The most frequently reported daily stressors were identified as “the health and well-being of a family member,” “being organized,” and “having too many things to do without help.”

One participant described the care she provides daily for her child and her partner, who works night shift and is also a patient at the methadone clinic.

I have to be up and ready by 7:30 AM. [My partner is] outside and then I know we’re coming to the clinic and he’s tired, so he has to go home and sleep till he goes to work. So it’s like I know I can’t do nothing Monday through Friday but cater to him and the baby.

[Participant 1]

Each young adult with OUD reported in their interviews that they had difficulty in the past with clinic regulations and the clinic environment. This was not the first treatment episode for any young adults with OUD participants. The social environment around the clinic was not seen as positive. Most participants reported going to and from the clinic and not spending time with peers.

Well, it’s like with this time, this isn’t my first rodeo, so I know what to do this time. So I know this might not be the best answer, but this works for me. I isolate and it’s not good. I isolate because I don’t live in a nice neighborhood. There’s drugs everywhere, but I don’t like, it’s definitely my mindset. I just go straight home and I try to keep a one track mind, but I mean, that wasn’t good for me to do it back then.

[Participant 3]

Young adults with OUD participants also reported that they did not have much to do and making money at a job posed a problem, as they feared they might use the money for drugs.

Because you got to understand the last 10 years of my life getting high was my hobby, my interest. So when I just stop, you do feel lost, then that’s when depression and being miserable, that all kicks in. You just don’t know what to do. But I just got to find new shit to do, to keep me occupied, and I don’t even know what to do right now. You know what I mean? It’s weird. I feel like I’m learning myself. I feel like how I felt when I was in high school. I am learning, trying to find myself, [trying to find things] that interest me instead of getting high.

[Participant 3]

Treatment center staff had a similar perspective to young adults with OUD regarding stressors and barriers to treatment engagement. All 5 treatment staff participants mentioned housing as a distinct barrier to stay in treatment. However, treatment center staff also highlighted issues related to childhood trauma, motivation, and family disconnection as barriers to maintaining recovery.

A lot of [clients] are not close with their families anymore, so I mean they don’t have anything to look forward to. Holidays, everything is just a regular day to them, so because they don’t have the motivation or the push, it makes it very difficult to keep them engaged on sobriety. They don’t see a reason to be sober.

[Staff 2]

Difficulties staying away from drug use were linked by several treatment center staff to the environment in which participants lived and socialized. According to treatment center staff, there was little motivation to stay away from drugs and staying in treatment was lacking for many participants, due to a lack of positive relationships. Treatment staff also mentioned that the relationships that they do have at the treatment center are not always positive and that many times staying away from people is a strategy young adults employ in order to stay engaged in treatment.

AWARE Feasibility, Acceptability, and Usability

Young adults and treatment center staff found AWARE to be relevant, acceptable, and feasible to complete over 4 weeks, although completion rates varied. Of the 3 young adults with OUD participants who began the AWARE intervention, only 2 completed over 90% of the 28 surveys sent. The third participant completed less than half of the surveys sent. Participants reported that it took 5‐10 minutes to complete their daily survey and that AWARE was “easy to use” and “didn’t take much time.”

I think it pretty much everything made sense the way [AWARE] was set up because there wasn’t too little questions or too much. It was kind of perfect to just reflect or more or less.

[Participant 1]

Young adults with OUD participants felt that AWARE was offering a type of social support, like “someone checking in on them.” One participant mentioned they were able to keep in contact with their parole officer as a result of having a study phone.

Clinic leadership and counselors reported that they felt AWARE presented a relevant, new way to engage young adults on a daily basis, in addition to weekly meetings. They also mentioned that AWARE allowed for anonymous reflection on the part of their clients. Counselors also appreciated that AWARE enabled weekly discussion of stressors based on patient-generated, real-time data.

[You] sent me a summary of my client’s information, and I thought that was really helpful. I can actually bring this up in session and see what exactly going on. Because usually in session, it’s kind of hard to pull that out of him or it’s the generic, “how are you doing,” “how’s your week been,” and “it’s fine, fine.”

[Staff 4]

Treatment center staff also identified AWARE as an intervention that provides check-ins with their clients, addressing the scarcity of relationships in their clients’ lives. AWARE extended the reach of a positive relationship at the treatment center through automated messaging and required response.

And I think it’s great because it’s daily, because in a way it gives them something to feel a part of. Like somebody cares, there’s a regular check-in. A lot of them don’t have anything, don’t have anybody asking them anything. Don’t have any conversations, nobody checking in.

[Staff 2]

Discussion

Principal Findings

This is the first study to develop a patient-centered digital health care technology specifically for young adults in OUD treatment to promote retention through client-counselor engagement with EMA data. This pilot study sought to explore the use of AWARE among young adults with OUD and counselors to address the barriers and facilitators to treatment engagement. We aimed to identify barriers to treatment engagement and assess the potential of AWARE to address these barriers through real-time, technology-based support. Although preliminary, our findings provide valuable insights that lay the groundwork for a future clinical trial designed to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of AWARE in improving treatment engagement and outcomes for this hard-to-reach population.

Initial findings from this pilot project indicate that delivery of daily surveys to young adult participants and the delivery of weekly summaries to counselors regarding stressors is not only possible but relevant to all involved. Previous research has found that people with OUD want a more personalized approach to treatment [48]. Methadone treatment delivery is largely unchanged since initial federal regulations and policies were established in 1972 [49]. New delivery methods are needed to promote treatment retention among young adults who demonstrate the highest opioid use rate per capita and the highest treatment drop-out rates [50-52]. To engage in treatment, young adults and others need treatment to be personalized and relevant to their circumstances (grounded in real-world experiences) [48]. Previous mHealth research for people with OUD has not specifically targeted young adults who are hard to reach and underrepresented in treatment [53-55]. Future research should focus on engaging out-of-treatment populations of young adults with new delivery innovations.

Young adult participants with OUD identified several stressors that may interfere with treatment engagement, including housing, transportation, drug use, and family obligations. Improved self-management in response to stress, craving, and negative mood is particularly crucial for young adults who are in a stage of exploration and identity formation and who often experience high levels of impulsivity in response to external and internal triggers [56,57]. Two young adults with OUD participants identified “not having much to do” and not having any social connections outside of the clinic as frequent stressors. Among individuals with OUD, loneliness has been recognized as a factor that drives substance use and increases cravings, and it is linked to significant triggers that can lead to relapse [58]. AWARE was able to reach out to participants on a daily basis and make them feel supported and less alone. It is possible that more contacts with positive relationships, through an intervention like AWARE, could not only increase treatment engagement but also begin to address social isolation.

Interventions that integrate a response to patient-generated data within existing substance use disorder treatment are more effective than self-monitoring alone at improving treatment retention [59].  However, patient-generated data has not been integrated within a direct point-of-care system workflow to inform treatment response to address drop-out risk factors at an opioid treatment center. AWARE presents an opportunity to integrate real-time patient-generated data at the point of care, which has the potential for significant impact by informing risk assessment and increasing opportunities for patient engagement and shared decision-making regarding treatment options. Such an approach promises to increase early treatment retention and thereby improve the quality of care and reduce the risk of overdose death.

Limitations

All participants received the intervention. Future studies will be trials of AWARE and will include control and intervention groups to test the effect of AWARE. The small sample size of this specific study tested the recruitment strategy and highlighted the small number of young adults in treatment for OUD at a large, urban opioid treatment center at one point in time. As a result, findings are likely influenced by selection bias, particularly toward young adults who were more motivated to engage in research. The results may not reflect the broader population of young adults in OUD treatment. In addition, due to the limited sample size, thematic saturation was not achieved in qualitative interviews; findings should be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory, intended to inform future refinement and testing of the intervention.

Conclusion

Overall, young adults with OUD and treatment staff participants were able to engage in AWARE in a busy OTP environment, and participants found it valuable. By addressing common stressors and providing a sense of social connection, AWARE may help fill a gap in support between counseling sessions for a hard-to-reach and underrepresented population in methadone treatment. Further research is needed to refine the measures and methods of AWARE and evaluate its effectiveness.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Friends Research Institute Pilot Award. KA was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (R01DA057608-01).

Informed written consent was obtained from all young adult participants in the study. Informed verbal consent was obtained from all treatment providers. The authors obtained permission to publish from the City of Philadelphia.

Abbreviations

AWARE

Awareness and Response to the Environment

CBT

cognitive behavioral therapy

COREQ

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research

EHR

electronic health record

EMA

ecological momentary assessment

HIPAA

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

mHealth

mobile health

NIDA

National Institute on Drug Abuse

OTP

opioid treatment program

OUD

opioid use disorder

RADaR

rigorous and accelerated data reduction

REDCap

Research Electronic Data Capture

Footnotes

Data Availability: The deidentified data sets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality considerations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ Contributions: KA conceived and designed the study, developed the methodology, and conducted the formal analysis. MS carried out the investigation, including material preparation and data collection, and contributed to data curation. KA drafted the initial version of the manuscript, and all authors contributed to reviewing and editing subsequent drafts. KA provided overall supervision of the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

  • 1.Singh GK, Kim IE, Girmay M, et al. Opioid epidemic in the United States: empirical trends, and a literature review of social determinants and epidemiological, pain management, and treatment patterns. Int J MCH AIDS. 2019;8(2):89–100. doi: 10.21106/ijma.284. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Choi S, Yerneni R, Healy S, Goyal M, Neighbors CJ. Predictors of medication utilization for opioid use disorder among medicaid-insured HIV patients in New York. Am J Addict. 2020 Mar;29(2):151–154. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12998. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hadland SE, Wharam JF, Schuster MA, Zhang F, Samet JH, Larochelle MR. Trends in receipt of buprenorphine and naltrexone for opioid use disorder among adolescents and young adults, 2001-2014. JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Aug 1;171(8):747–755. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0745. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alexander K, Reed MK, Sterling RC. The interaction of race and age in methadone treatment retention outcomes: a single-center analysis. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2023 May;148:209020. doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2023.209020. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dugosh K, Abraham A, Seymour B, McLoyd K, Chalk M, Festinger D. A systematic review on the use of psychosocial interventions in conjunction with medications for the treatment of opioid addiction. J Addict Med. 2016;10(2):93–103. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000193. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Krawczyk N, Williams AR, Saloner B, Cerdá M. Who stays in medication treatment for opioid use disorder? A national study of outpatient specialty treatment settings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021 Jul;126:108329. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108329. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lin LA, Lofwall MR, Walsh SL, Knudsen HK. Perceived need and availability of psychosocial interventions across buprenorphine prescriber specialties. Addict Behav. 2019 Jun;93:72–77. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.01.023. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Martínez-Vispo C, Martínez Ú, López-Durán A, Fernández Del Río E, Becoña E. Effects of behavioural activation on substance use and depression: a systematic review. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2018 Sep 29;13(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s13011-018-0173-2. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Burgess-Hull A, Epstein DH. Ambulatory assessment methods to examine momentary state-based predictors of opioid use behaviors. Curr Addict Rep. 2021;8(1):122–135. doi: 10.1007/s40429-020-00351-7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McDevitt-Murphy ME, Luciano MT, Zakarian RJ. Use of ecological momentary assessment and intervention in treatment with adults. Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ) 2018;16(4):370–375. doi: 10.1176/appi.focus.20180017. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Alexander K, Sanjuan P, Terplan M. The use of ecological momentary assessment methods with people receiving medication for opioid use disorder: a systematic review. Curr Addict Rep. 2023;10(3):366–377. doi: 10.1007/s40429-023-00492-5. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Miranda R, Treloar Padovano H, Gray JC, Wemm SE, Blanchard A. Real-time assessment of alcohol craving and naltrexone treatment responsiveness in a randomized clinical trial. Addict Behav. 2018 Aug;83:72–78. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.01.009. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Burgess-Hull AJ, Smith KE, Schriefer D, Panlilio LV, Epstein DH, Preston KL. Longitudinal patterns of momentary stress during outpatient opioid agonist treatment: a growth-mixture-model approach to classifying patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021 Sep 1;226:108884. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108884. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chandra S, Scharf D, Shiffman S. Within-day temporal patterns of smoking, withdrawal symptoms, and craving. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Sep 1;117(2-3):118–125. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.12.027. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kennedy AP, Epstein DH, Phillips KA, Preston KL. Sex differences in cocaine/heroin users: drug-use triggers and craving in daily life. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Sep 1;132(1-2):29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.12.025. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Panlilio LV, Stull SW, Bertz JW, et al. Beyond abstinence and relapse II: momentary relationships between stress, craving, and lapse within clusters of patients with similar patterns of drug use. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2021 Jun;238(6):1513–1529. doi: 10.1007/s00213-021-05782-2. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Preston KL, Schroeder JR, Kowalczyk WJ, et al. End-of-day reports of daily hassles and stress in men and women with opioid-use disorder: relationship to momentary reports of opioid and cocaine use and stress. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Dec 1;193:21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.023. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Moran LM, Kowalczyk WJ, Phillips KA, et al. Sex differences in daily life stress and craving in opioid-dependent patients. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(5):512–523. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2018.1454934. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Panlilio LV, Stull SW, Kowalczyk WJ, et al. Stress, craving and mood as predictors of early dropout from opioid agonist therapy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Sep 1;202:200–208. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.026. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hendershot CS, Witkiewitz K, George WH, Marlatt GA. Relapse prevention for addictive behaviors. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011 Jul 19;6:17. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-6-17. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Larimer ME, Palmer RS, Marlatt GA. Relapse prevention. An overview of Marlatt’s cognitive-behavioral model. Alcohol Res Health. 1999;23(2):151–160. Medline. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tiffany ST. A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychol Rev. 1990 Apr;97(2):147–168. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.147. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Karoly P. Mechanisms of self-regulation: a systems view. Annu Rev Psychol. 1993 Jan;44(1):23–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tofighi B, Badiei B, Badolato R, et al. Integrating text messaging in a low threshold telebuprenorphine program for New York City residents with opioid use disorder during COVID-19: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Addict Med. 2023;17(5):e281–e286. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000001161. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Monico LB, Eastlick M, Michero D, Pielsticker P, Glasner S. Feasibility and acceptability of a novel digital therapeutic combining behavioral and pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241258400. doi: 10.1177/20552076241258400. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Marsch LA, Guarino H, Acosta M, et al. Web-based behavioral treatment for substance use disorders as a partial replacement of standard methadone maintenance treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Jan;46(1):43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.012. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ashrafioun L, Allan NP, Stecker TA. A randomized clinical trial to assess feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effects of telehealth-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for perceived social isolation among individuals with opioid use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2024 May 1;258:111268. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111268. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Carroll KM, Kiluk BD, Nich C, et al. Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapy: efficacy and durability of CBT4CBT among cocaine-dependent individuals maintained on methadone. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;171(4):436–444. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070987. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Williams AR, Nunes EV, Bisaga A, et al. Developing an opioid use disorder treatment cascade: a review of quality measures. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018 Aug;91:57–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.001. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sheeran P, Maki A, Montanaro E, et al. The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016 Nov;35(11):1178–1188. doi: 10.1037/hea0000387. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Barta WD, Kurth ME, Stein MD, Tennen H, Kiene SM. Craving and self-efficacy in the first five weeks of methadone maintenance therapy: a daily process study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009 Sep;70(5):735–740. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.735. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gass JC, Funderburk JS, Shepardson R, Kosiba JD, Rodriguez L, Maisto SA. The use and impact of self-monitoring on substance use outcomes: a descriptive systematic review. Subst Abus. 2021;42(4):512–526. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2021.1874595. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Swendeman D, Ramanathan N, Baetscher L, et al. Smartphone self-monitoring to support self-management among people living with HIV: perceived benefits and theory of change from a mixed-methods randomized pilot study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 May 1;69 Suppl 1(1):S80–91. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000570. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Svendsen TS, Bjornestad J, Slyngstad TE, et al. “Becoming myself”: how participants in a longitudinal substance use disorder recovery study experienced receiving continuous feedback on their results. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2020 Jan 23;15(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s13011-020-0254-x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dunbar-Jacob J, Mortimer-Stephens MK. Treatment adherence in chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;54 Suppl 1:S57–60. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00457-7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56(2):267–283. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.McKay JR. Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2017 May;112(5):751–757. doi: 10.1111/add.13502. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Carroll KM. Therapy Manuals for Drug Addiction, Manual 1: A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach: Treating Cocaine Addiction. National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1998. pp. 55–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Preston KL, Kowalczyk WJ, Phillips KA, et al. Before and after: craving, mood, and background stress in the hours surrounding drug use and stressful events in patients with opioid-use disorder. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2018 Sep;235(9):2713–2723. doi: 10.1007/s00213-018-4966-9. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Preston KL, Kowalczyk WJ, Phillips KA, et al. Context and craving during stressful events in the daily lives of drug-dependent patients. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2017 Sep;234(17):2631–2642. doi: 10.1007/s00213-017-4663-0. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Preston KL, Epstein DH. Stress in the daily lives of cocaine and heroin users: relationship to mood, craving, relapse triggers, and cocaine use. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2011 Nov;218(1):29–37. doi: 10.1007/s00213-011-2183-x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kowalczyk WJ, Moran LM, Bertz JW, et al. Using ecological momentary assessment to examine the relationship between craving and affect with opioid use in a clinical trial of clonidine as an adjunct medication to buprenorphine treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(5):502–511. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2018.1454933. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Moran LM, Phillips KA, Kowalczyk WJ, et al. Aripiprazole for cocaine abstinence: a randomized-controlled trial with ecological momentary assessment. Behav Pharmacol. 2017 Feb;28(1):63–73. doi: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000268. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Preston KL, Vahabzadeh M, Schmittner J, Lin JL, Gorelick DA, Epstein DH. Cocaine craving and use during daily life. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2009 Dec;207(2):291–301. doi: 10.1007/s00213-009-1655-8. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Preston KL, Jobes ML, Phillips KA, Epstein DH. Real-time assessment of alcohol drinking and drug use in opioid-dependent polydrug users. Behav Pharmacol. 2016 Oct;27(7):579–584. doi: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000250. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Watkins DC. Rapid and Rigorous Qualitative Data Analysis: The “RADaR” technique for applied research. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917712131. doi: 10.1177/1609406917712131. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kourounis G, Richards BDW, Kyprianou E, Symeonidou E, Malliori MM, Samartzis L. Opioid substitution therapy: lowering the treatment thresholds. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Apr 1;161:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.12.021. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schwartz RP, Kelly SM, Mitchell SG, et al. Patient-centered methadone treatment: a randomized clinical trial. Addiction. 2017 Mar;112(3):454–464. doi: 10.1111/add.13622. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bagley SM, Chavez L, Braciszewski JM, et al. Receipt of medications for opioid use disorder among youth engaged in primary care: data from 6 health systems. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021 Jul 7;16(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s13722-021-00249-3. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chang DC, Klimas J, Wood E, Fairbairn N. Medication-assisted treatment for youth with opioid use disorder: current dilemmas and remaining questions. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(2):143–146. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2017.1399403. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fishman M, Wenzel K, Scodes J, et al. Young adults have worse outcomes than older adults: secondary analysis of a medication trial for opioid use disorder. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Dec;67(6):778–785. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.038. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gustafson DH, Landucci G, Vjorn OJ, et al. Effects of bundling medication for opioid use disorder with an mHealth intervention targeting addiction: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2024 Feb 1;181(2):115–124. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20230055. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.King VL, Siegel G, Priesmeyer HR, Siegel LH, Potter JS. Development and evaluation of a digital app for patient self-management of opioid use disorder: usability, acceptability, and utility study. JMIR Form Res. 2024 Apr 1;8:e48068. doi: 10.2196/48068. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nuamah J, Mehta R, Sasangohar F. Technologies for opioid use disorder management: mobile app search and scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 5;8(6):e15752. doi: 10.2196/15752. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Schuman-Olivier Z, Weiss RD, Hoeppner BB, Borodovsky J, Albanese MJ. Emerging adult age status predicts poor buprenorphine treatment retention. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Sep;47(3):202–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.04.006. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Reynolds BW, Basso MR, Miller AK, Whiteside DM, Combs D. Executive function, impulsivity, and risky behaviors in young adults. Neuropsychology. 2019 Feb;33(2):212–221. doi: 10.1037/neu0000510. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Herczyk JM, Zullig KJ, Davis SM, et al. Association of loneliness and mindfulness in substance use treatment retention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Aug 13;20(16):6571. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20166571. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Reback CJ, Rünger D, Fletcher JB, Swendeman D. Ecological momentary assessments for self-monitoring and counseling to optimize methamphetamine treatment and sexual risk reduction outcomes among gay and bisexual men. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018 Sep;92:17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.005. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JMIR Formative Research are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc.

RESOURCES