Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05984966

Supported Employment COVID-19 Rapid Testing for PWID

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Oregon

Eugene, Oregon, 97403, United States

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

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

Treatment and study plan

Supported Employment

Behavioral

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

Primary outcomes

  1. Participant Peer Well-Being (Flourishing Scale)

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Health Communication Self-Efficacy

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  2. Peer Support Self-Efficacy

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  3. COVID-19 Knowledge

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  4. HIV Knowledge

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  5. Hepatitis C Knowledge

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  6. Syphilis Knowledge

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  7. Naloxone Knowledge

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  8. Harm Reduction Risk Behaviors - Number of Times a Person Injected Drugs

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  9. Harm Reduction Risk Behaviors - Number of Times a Person Used Needles

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

  10. Harm Reduction Risk Behaviors - Number of Times Person Engaged in Risky Intercourse Behaviors

    Time frame: Assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up

    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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Oregon

Other

Registry information

Official study title

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

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2025
Study completion
2025
First posted
Aug 9, 2023
Registry last updated
Apr 20, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.