Effect of alternative income assistance schedules on drug use and drug-related harm: a randomised controlled trial

Lindsey Richardson, Allison Laing, JinCheol Choi, Ekaterina Nosova, M-J Milloy, Brandon Dl Marshall, Joel Singer, Evan Wood, Thomas Kerr, Lindsey Richardson, Allison Laing, JinCheol Choi, Ekaterina Nosova, M-J Milloy, Brandon Dl Marshall, Joel Singer, Evan Wood, Thomas Kerr

Abstract

Background: The synchronised monthly disbursement of income assistance, whereby all recipients are paid on the same day, has been associated with increases in illicit drug use and serious associated harms. This phenomenon is often referred to as the cheque effect. Because payment variability can affect consumption patterns, this study aimed to assess whether these harms could be mitigated through a structural intervention that varied income assistance payment timing and frequency.

Methods: This randomised, parallel group trial was done in Vancouver, Canada, and enrolled recipients of income assistance whose drug use increased around payment days. The recipients were randomly assigned 1:2:2 to a control group that received monthly synchronised income assistance payments on government payment days, a staggered group in which participants received single desynchronised monthly income assistance payments, or a split and staggered group in which participants received desynchronised income assistance payments split into two instalments per month, 2 weeks apart, for six monthly payment cycles. Desynchronised payments in the intervention groups were made on individual payment days outside the week of the standard government schedules. Randomisation was through a pre-established stratified block procedure. Investigators and statisticians were masked to group allocation, but participants and front-line staff were not. Complete final results are reported after scheduled interim analyses and the resulting early stoppage of recruitment. Under intention-to-treat specifications, generalised linear mixed models were used to analyse the primary outcome, which was escalations in drug use, predefined as a 40% increase in at least one of: use frequency; use quantity; or number of substances used during the 3 days after government payments. Secondary analyses examined analogous drug use outcomes coinciding with individual payments as well as exposure to violence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02457949.

Findings: Between Oct 27, 2015, and Jan 2, 2019, 45 participants were enrolled to the control group, 72 to the staggered group, and 77 to the split and staggered group. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a significantly reduced likelihood of increased drug use coinciding with government payment days, relative to the control group, in the staggered (adjusted odds ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·20-0·74; p=0·0044) and split and staggered (0·44, 0·23-0·83; p=0·012) groups. Findings were consistent in the secondary analyses of drug use coinciding with individual payment days (staggered group 0·50, 0·27-0·96, p=0·036; split and staggered group 0·49, 0·26-0·94, p=0·030). However, secondary outcome analyses of exposure to violence showed increased harm in the staggered group compared with the control group (2·71, 1·06-6·91, p=0·037). Additionally, 51 individuals had a severe or life-threatening adverse event and there were six deaths, none of which was directly attributed to study participation.

Interpretation: Complex results indicate the potential for modified income assistance payment schedules to mitigate escalations in drug use, provided measures to address unintended harms are also undertaken. Additional research is needed to clarify whether desynchronised schedules produce other unanticipated consequences and if additional measures could mitigate these harms.

Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Providence Health Care Research Institute, Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Research, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests The University of British Columbia has received an unstructured grant from NG Biomed to support M-JM. EW is the chief medical officer of Numinus Wellness. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1:. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials…
Figure 1:. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials trial profile
Completed treatment refers to participants who were on the study intervention and under active observation for 6 months; completed trial refers to those who provided observations to the end of the trial period (ie, not withdrawn from the trial, lost to follow-up, or deceased), regardless of treatment status. MSDPR=Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.
Figure 2:. Multivariate, generalised linear mixed model…
Figure 2:. Multivariate, generalised linear mixed model analyses of drug use and violence coinciding with income assistance payments among people who use illicit drugs (n=194)
Intention-to-treat analysis of the effects of varying the timing and frequency of income assistance payments on: (1) escalations of drug use coinciding with government payment days; (2) escalations of drug use coinciding with individual payment days; and (3) exposure to violence among people who use illicit drugs. The control group is the reference category for all analyses.

References

    1. Strathdee SA, Hallett TB, Bobrova N, et al. HIV and risk environment for injecting drug users: the past, present, and future. Lancet 2010; 376: 268–84.
    1. Degenhardt L, Wolfe D, Hall W, et al. Strategies to reduce drug-related harm: responding to the evidence base. Lancet 2019; 394: 1490–93.
    1. Dasgupta N, Beletsky L, Ciccarone D. Opioid crisis: no easy fix to its social and economic determinants. Am J Public Health 2018; 108: 182–86.
    1. Shahidi FV, Ramraj C, Sod-Erdene O, Hildebrand V, Siddiqi A. The impact of social assistance programs on population health: a systematic review of research in high-income countries. BMC Public Health 2019; 19: 2.
    1. Richardson L, Dong H, Kerr T, Milloy M-J, Hayashi K. Drug-related harm coinciding with income assistance payments: results from a community-based cohort of people who use drugs. Addiction 2020; published online July 3. 10.1111/add.15182.
    1. Rosen MI. The ‘check effect’ reconsidered. Addiction 2011; 106: 1071–77.
    1. Richardson L, Laing A, Milloy M-J, et al. Protocol of the impact of Alternative Social Assistance disbursement on drug-related harm (TASA) study: a randomized controlled trial to evaluate changes to payment timing and frequency among people who use illicit drugs. BMC Public Health 2016; 16: 668.
    1. Hsu LC. The timing of welfare payments and intimate partner violence. Econ Inq 2017; 55: 1017–31.
    1. Goedel WC, Green TC, Viner-Brown S, Rich JD, Marshall BDL. Increased overdose mortality during the first week of the month: revisiting the “check effect” through a spatial lens. Drug Alcohol Depend 2019; 197: 49–55.
    1. Dobkin C, Puller SL. The effects of government transfers on monthly cycles in drug abuse, hospitalization and mortality. J Public Econ 2007; 91: 2137–57.
    1. Parsons CA, Van Wesep ED. The timing of pay. J Financ Econ 2013; 109: 373–97.
    1. Aguila E, Kapteyn A, Perez-Arce F. Consumption smoothing and frequency of benefit payments of cash transfer programs. Am Econ Rev 2017; 107: 430–35.
    1. Strickland JC, Smith MA. The effects of social contact on drug use: behavioral mechanisms controlling drug intake. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2014; 22: 23–34.
    1. Richardson LA, Long C, DeBeck K, et al. Socioeconomic marginalisation in the structural production of vulnerability to violence among people who use illicit drugs. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015; 69: 686–92.
    1. Liu S, Blomley N. Making news and making space: framing Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Can Geogr 2013; 57: 119–32.
    1. Provincial Government of British Columbia. Income assistance. (accessed Nov 24, 2020).
    1. Efird J Blocked randomization with randomly selected block sizes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010; 8: 15–20.
    1. Hjorthøj CR, Hjorthøj AR, Nordentoft M. Validity of timeline follow-back for self-reported use of cannabis and other illicit substances–systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav 2012; 37: 225–33.
    1. Kilmer B, Everingham SMS, Caulkins JP, et al. What Americas users spend on illegal drugs, 2000–2010. February, 2014. (accessed Oct 20, 2020).
    1. Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol 1992; 21: 837–41.
    1. O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35: 549–56.
    1. McCulloch CE, Neuhaus JM. Generalized linear mixed models. In: Wright JD, ed. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier, 2015: 845–52.
    1. Min Y, Agresti A. Random effect models for repeated measures of zero-inflated count data. Stat Model 2005; 5: 1–19.
    1. Berger VW. Valid adjustment of randomized comparisons for binary covariates. Biometrical J 2004; 46: 589–94.
    1. Bellack AS, Bennett ME, Gearon JS, Brown CH, Yang YA. A randomized clinical trial of a new behavioral treatment for drug abuse in people with severe and persistent mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63: 426–32.
    1. Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 663–69.
    1. Pérez-Muñoz C What is wrong with testing welfare recipients for drug use. Polit Stud-London 2017; 65: 912–29.
    1. Jacques S, Wright R, Allen A. Drug dealers, retaliation, and deterrence. Int J Drug Policy 2014; 25: 656–62.
    1. Darke S Self-report among injecting drug users: a review. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998; 51: 253–63.
    1. Quesnel-Vallée A Policies and health inequalities: state of the field and future directions. Can Public Policy 2015; 41 (suppl 2): S1–9.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa