Supported Employment COVID-19 Rapid Testing for PWID

Supported Employment to Create a Community Culture of COVID-19 Rapid Testing Among People Who Inject Drugs: PeerConnect2Test

This community-engaged project aims to improve the accessibility of rapid tests through a supported employment program for people who inject drugs (PWID). The overall goal is to develop a transformative community-driven intervention in partnership with a community partner to promote widespread access to rapid testing among PWID.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Health Behavior
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Supported Employment

Detailed Description

The program is called Peer Connect2Test (PeerC2T). PWID will be recruited by a community partner who provides syringe exchange services. The community partner will train PWID to become peer health workers (PHW) to distribute SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests to other PWID. Investigators expect that PeerC2T will improve knowledge, self-efficacy, and health behaviors among PHWs.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 102
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Oregon
    • Eugene, Oregon, United States, 97403
      • University of Oregon

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Age 18 and older
• Able to speak and understand English

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Prevention
• Allocation: N/A
• Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

1

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Supported Employment for Peer Health Workers; Supported employment program (Peer Connect2Test) for people who inject drugs to provide SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests to others in their networks	Behavioral: Supported Employment; PeerC2T is part of a supported employment program where PWID are trained and supported to provide PWID with job skills to be able to act as Peer Health Workers to facilitate the distribution of rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing to other PWID. The effect of the training on the Peer Health Worker themself will be evaluated.; Other Names: Peer Connect2Test

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Participant Peer Well-Being (Flourishing Scale)	Participant well-being was computed as the mean of eight items with a 7-point response option (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The internal consistency, as measured with Cronbach's alpha (α), was .90, scores could range from 1 to 7, and higher scores indicated greater levels of well-being.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Health Communication Self-Efficacy	Health communication self-efficacy was computed as the mean score of 14 items with a 5-point response option (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The internal consistency, as measured with Cronbach's alpha (α), was .97; scores could range from 1 to 5, and higher scores indicated greater self-efficacy.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Peer Support Self-Efficacy	Peer support self-efficacy, an Aim 1 measure, was computed as the mean score of 18 items with a 5-point response option (1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident). The internal consistency, as measured with Cronbach's alpha (α), was .96; scores could range from 1 to 5, and higher scores indicated greater self-efficacy.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
COVID-19 Knowledge	COVID-19 knowledge was computed as the number of correctly endorsed items. Five items were presented to test knowledge of COVID-19. Scores could range from 0 to 5, and higher scores indicate greater levels of COVID-19 knowledge.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
HIV Knowledge	HIV knowledge was computed as the number of correctly endorsed items. Four items were presented to test understanding of HIV. Scores could range from 0 to 4, and higher scores indicate greater levels of HIV knowledge.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Hepatitis C Knowledge	Hepatitis C knowledge was computed as the number of correctly endorsed items. Five items were presented to test understanding of HIV. Scores could range from 0 to 5, and higher scores indicate greater levels of hepatitis C knowledge.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Syphilis Knowledge	Syphilis knowledge was computed as the number of correctly endorsed items. Five items were presented to test understanding of HIV. Scores could range from 0 to 5, and higher scores indicate greater levels of Syphilis knowledge.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Naloxone Knowledge	Naloxone knowledge was computed as the number of correctly endorsed items. Five items were presented to test understanding of HIV. Scores could range from 0 to 5, and higher scores indicate greater levels of naloxone knowledge.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Harm Reduction Risk Behaviors - Number of Times a Person Injected Drugs	Harm reduction risk behaviors included behaviors that occurred in the past month, and a higher score indicated greater levels of risky behavior. The injected drugs score was the total number of times a person reported they had injected drugs.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Harm Reduction Risk Behaviors - Number of Times a Person Used Needles	Harm reduction risk behaviors included behaviors that occurred in the past month. The needle use score was a count of number of times they used a needle after someone else had used it (0 = none, 5 = more than 10 times), number of different people who used a needle before they had (0 = none, 5 = more than 10 times), number of times someone used a needle after they had (0 = none, 5 = more than 10 times), and before using needles how often they used bleach to clean the needles (0 = don't reuse, 5 = never). Scores could range from 0 to 20, and a higher score indicated a greater level of needle risky behaviors.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up
Harm Reduction Risk Behaviors - Number of Times Person Engaged in Risky Intercourse Behaviors	Harm reduction risk behaviors included behaviors that occurred in the past month. The intercourse score was a count of the number of people a person had sex within the last month (0 = none, 5 = more than 10 people), the number of times a person used condoms when having sex with regular partner(s) in the last month (0 = no regular partner, 6 = never), how often they used condoms when they paid for sex (0 = not paid sex, 5 = never), how often they used condoms when having sex with casual partners (0 = no casual partners, 5 = never), and how many times they had anal sex in the last month (0 = 0 times, 5 = more than 5 times). Scores could range from 0 to 26, and a higher score indicated a greater level of intercourse risky behaviors.	Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Oregon

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): August 3, 2023
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 15, 2025
• Study Completion (Actual): March 15, 2025

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: February 28, 2023
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: August 8, 2023
• First Posted (Actual): August 9, 2023

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): April 20, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 7, 2026
• Last Verified: April 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Behavior; Health Behavior; Health Services; Health Care Facilities Workforce and Services; Socioeconomic Factors; Population Characteristics; Rehabilitation; Employment; Rehabilitation, Vocational; Employment, Supported
• Other Study ID Numbers: STUDY00000657

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES
• IPD Plan Description: We have shared data with the RADx-UP Data Coordination Center at Duke University. Data was de-identified and is available to other researchers for further use.
• IPD Sharing Time Frame: Upon study completion. Timeframe available determined by the National Institutes of Health.
• IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type: STUDY_PROTOCOL; ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No