Implementing Technology-Assisted Drug Treatment and Relapse Prevention in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)
Phase: NA
Conditions: Substance Use Disorders, HIV
Sponsor: University of Wisconsin, Madison

Version 5/5/2015 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementing Technology-Assisted Drug Treatment and Relapse Prevention in FQHCs. 
 
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:         David H. Gustafson, PhD. 
University of WI - Madison 
 
 
 
 
 
Department: Industrial Engineering 
1513 University Avenue, ME Bldg. Suite 4109 
Madison, WI 53706 
 
Phone 608.263.4882 
 
Fax:608.265.3281 or 608.890.1438 
Email: Dhgustaf@wisc.edu 
 
 
CO-INVESTIGATORS:    
Lisa Marsch, PhD. 
Dartmouth College 
Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center 
Rivermill Commercial Center, Suite B4-1 
Lebanon, NH 03766 
Phone: 603-448-0263 
E-mail: Lisa.A.Marsch@Dartmouth.edu  
 
Randall Brown, M.D. 
Department: Family Medicine 
1100 Delaplaine Ct Room 3832 
Madison, WI 53715 
Phone: 608.263.6558, 608.263.3111 
E-mail: randy.brown@fammed.wisc.edu 
 
BIOSTATISTICIAN:                           Amy Atwood, PhD. 
 
Department: Industrial Engineering 
1513 University Avenue, ME Bldg. Suite 4155C 
Madison, WI 53706 
 
Phone 608.265.6277 
 
Fax:608.265.3281 or 608.890.1438 
Email: amy.atwood@chess.wisc.edu 
  
 
 
 
  PROJECT DIRECTOR:                    Fiona McTavish, M.S. 
 
Department: Industrial Engineering 
1513 University Avenue, ME Bldg. Suite 4111 
Madison, WI 53706 
 
Phone 608.262.7852 
 
Fax:608.265.3281 or 608.890.1438 
Email: fiona.mctavish@chess.wisc.edu 
 

Version 5/5/2015 
 
 
SPONSOR:  
 
 
 
 
National Institutes of Health: NIDA 
 
 
PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS:   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Access Community Health Center in Madison, WI.,  
 
 
 
 
 
.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Institute for Family Health, Bronx, NY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Partnership Health Center Missoula, MT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Version 5/5/2015 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Schema/Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
 
 1.0 
Introduction/Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
 
 2.0 
Objectives. . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 3.0 
Selection of Patients  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8 
 
 4.0 
Registration Procedures………………………………………………………. . . . . . .   8 
 
 5.0 
Treatment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  11 
 
 6.0 
Measurement of Effect  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 11   
 
 7.0 
Study Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12 
 
 8.0 
Drug Formulation and Procurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
 
 9.0 
Statistical Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
 
10.0 Pathology Review (if appropriate)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14  
 
11.0 Records to be Kept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 
 
12.0 Patient Consent and Peer Judgment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14 
 
Appendix  A: 
   CHESS Data and Safety Monitoring Plan ………. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ….16 
 
13.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .  19 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
Abstract 
 
Primary care providers at Federally Qualified Health Care facilities (FQHCs) are being asked to integrate substance 
use disorder (SUD) treatment and HIV care into their practices which are already overburdened. We will implement 
a wireless smart phone based delivery system called Seva (the Sanskrit word for selfless caring). Seva integrates 
HIV risk behaviors, status, and services into both the patient interface and provider registry components. Seva will 
combine: Therapeutic Education System (TES addiction treatment), Addiction Comprehensive Health 
Enhancement Support System (A-CHESS relapse prevention), and a symptom reporting system called the Clinician 
Report (CR).  The CR facilitates patient- clinician communication and assists clinicians in better managing patient 
symptoms and treatment. Each component of Seva has proven to be effective, but each has its own interface and 
operates independently making it difficult to take advantage of their synergistic potential. While Seva has great 
potential, success relies not only on technology, but on creating a welcoming environment and effective processes 
to implement and sustain. We propose to overcome key barriers to integrating substance abuse treatment and HIV 
care into primary care by using a blending of three proven quality improvement strategies to implement Seva. We 
hypothesize that our implementation strategy will create a welcoming environment, and enhance implementation 
success and sustainability by removing barriers and building on facilitators, allowing Seva to flourish. We will use 
quantitative and qualitative methods to determine how much our implementation improves: Reach, Effectiveness, 
Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance. We will implement Seva in 3 FQHCs.  ACCESS community health 
center in Madison will test and refine the implementation strategy and adapt Seva to meet FQHC needs & ensure 
ease of use. Two other FQHCs will receive Seva at six-month intervals in a stepped wedge design. A coach will be 
assigned to each FQHC to help implement, operate and sustain Seva. We will measure impact on the FQHC over a 
three-year period. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
1.0 
INTRODUCTION 
 
This proposal combines evidence-based computerized intervention strategies designed to provide treatment and 
recovery support for Substance use Disorder (SUD) and tests a strategy for implementing them to make more 
efficient and effective use of limited healthcare and addiction treatment resources. The integrated intervention 
delivery system we propose, called Seva will be available to patients anytime and anywhere. If successfully 
implemented, it may be an important “clinician-extender” because much of ongoing therapeutic support can be 
delivered using Seva, allowing clinicians to focus on providing the primary care they are uniquely trained to 
deliver. The development period will be dedicated to the technical integration of these systems.   
 
While Seva has great potential, success relies not only on technology, but on creating a welcoming environment 
and effective processes to implement and sustain. We propose to overcome key barriers to integrating substance 
abuse treatment and HIV care into primary care by using a blending of three proven quality improvement strategies 
to implement Seva. We hypothesize that our implementation strategy will create a welcoming environment, and 
enhance implementation success and sustainability by removing barriers and building on facilitators, allowing Seva 
to flourish. We will use quantitative and qualitative methods to determine how much our implementation improves: 
Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance. We will implement Seva in 3 FQHCs. Access 
Community Health Center in Madison will test and refine the implementation strategy and adapt Seva to meet 
FQHC needs & ensure ease of use. Two other FQHCs will receive Seva at six-month intervals in a stepped wedge 
design. A coach will be assigned to each FQHC to help implement, operate and sustain Seva. We will measure 
impact on the FQHC over a three-year period. Below are the details of the integrated system: 
 
Seva is a computer system that functions on smart phones and tablets with one easy-to-use interface. Seva 
combines three evidence-based computer systems--one for SUD treatment (TES), one for recovery support (A-
CHESS) and one that allows patients to communicate healthcare concerns to their clinical team (Clinician Report) 
allowing these data to be used to improve patient care, reduce side effects and improve patient quality of life.  Seva 
is much more than the sum of its parts because the programs will be integrated to make the resources unique to 
TES, A-CHESS, and Clinician Report (CR) available throughout treatment and recovery support. Seva will: 
• support individual and population-based care (by tracking, reminding, and reporting on health status, visit 
attendance, and treatment adherence for addiction.   
• speed up and make more predictable transitions between FQHCs and addiction specialists. Transitions (or 
handoffs, e.g. between a FQHC and specialty treatment) often produce dropouts, inefficiencies, and errors. 
• allow patients to securely communicate health symptoms and concerns with their clinical team to facilitate 
clinician integration and patient care management. 
 
Seva components include: 
 
TES is a computer program built on the evidence-based Community Reinforcement Approach. TES has 65 
interactive, multimedia modules, beginning with basic cognitive behavioral recovery support skills (refusing drugs, 
managing thoughts about drug use, etc.). TES also includes modules to prevent HIV, hepatitis, and sexually 
transmitted infections (STIs). Additional modules teach skills to improve psychosocial functioning (family/social 
relations, managing negative moods, etc). TES is a self-directed program that includes a module teaching patients 
how to use the system and a "customization program" to build an individualized treatment plan for patients. TES 
uses “fluency-based” computer-assisted instruction to assess a patient’s grasp of material and adjust it to promote 
the mastery of skills and information. Its experiential learning environments (via interactive videos) help patients 
learn modeled behaviors (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation). Further, TES allows therapists to view (on their 
computers) summaries of their patients' TES activity and progress, and integrates patients’ use of TES into 
counseling sessions so that TES can function as a clinician-extender. Randomized trials have found that 1) TES is 
as efficacious as behavioral therapy delivered by therapists and superior to standard substance abuse treatment , 2) 
TES modules for HIV, hepatitis, and STI risk increased HIV/disease prevention knowledge and self-reported risk 
for HIV and were perceived as more useful than a standard intervention , and 3) adding TES to methadone 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
treatment improved objectively measured opioid abstinence rates. TES is being converted to operate on wireless 
systems.   
 
A-CHESS, or Addiction- CHESS, is a smart phone recovery support system. CHESS is the umbrella name for 
eHealth systems developed and tested for the past 25 years at the University of Wisconsin Center for Health 
Enhancement Systems Studies [chess.wisc.edu]. CHESS is also an NCI-designated Center of Excellence in Cancer 
Communication Research and an AHRQ-designated Center of Excellence in using technology to promote active 
aging. CHESS is built upon evidence-based principles of recovery support: long duration, assertive outreach, 
monitoring, prompts, action planning, peer and family support, and case management. Recovery support can 
improve health and reduce healthcare use, but is rarely used in addiction because of the lack of resources. 
Compared to the unrestricted Internet, CHESS offers a closed, guided universe of tailored information and support 
with efficient navigation, eliminating the need for complicated search and discovery. In randomized trials, CHESS 
significantly improved: 1) quality of life and costs of care in people with HIV, 2) quality of life and self-efficacy for 
women with breast cancer vs. control and Internet groups , 3) asthma control for young children, and 4) quality of 
dying and length of survival for lung cancer patients.  Smart phone forms of CHESS are in randomized trials on 
colon cancer, urban teenagers with asthma, and alcohol-dependent patients. Four-month tests with 192 alcohol-
dependent subjects found that A-CHESS reduced heavy drinking days by 46% vs. a control group and that long-
term use of A-CHESS is higher than other CHESS applications. For more detail on A-CHESS, please see 
http://www.innovationsforrecovery.com  
 
Clinician Report (CR) is a patient monitoring, clinical decision making and communication tool that allows patients 
to answer questions about their symptom status, current physical and emotional needs and concerns to be addressed 
by the clinicians at the next clinic visit.   The CR summarizes the data provided by patients and makes it available 
online to their clinicians and patients.  The CR also provides a graphical summary of the patient’s longitudinal data 
so both the patient and the clinician can view status changes over time. Additionally by summarizing the needs 
conveyed by patients, the CR provides clinical staff with immediate patient health and behavioral issues as well as 
an understanding of other important life concerns. The CR is intended to facilitate coordination of care and assist 
clinicians in treatment follow-up to improve patient adherence and improved health outcomes.  
   
 
2.0 
OBJECTIVES 
 
Clinician Subject: Approximately 45 (15 from each site) clinician subjects will be recruited. Participating clinicians 
will be asked to participate in three (30-45 minute) focus groups where they will be asked about their impressions 
and experience using Seva, whether the system helped or did not help their clinical practice and any suggestions to 
improve the Seva system.  No personal health information will be collected during the focus groups, but we will 
audio record the focus groups so that we can transcribe responses after the groups are complete.  Participants, 
however, will not be identified on the recording or transcription.  Clinicians will also be asked to refer appropriate 
patients to the research study team for possible study recruitment and accept receipt of the Clinician Report and 
respond accordingly.  Additionally they will be asked to complete 7 surveys about their work environment and how 
their clinic is using/implementing the Seva recovery support system.  Clinicians will also be asked to keep track of 
the time they spend on project related activities. 
 
Patient subjects: Approximately 300 (100 from each site) patient subjects will be recruited.  A sample of 15-20 
participating patients will be asked to participate in three (30-45 minute) focus groups where they will be asked 
about their opinion and experience using the Seva system and if the system helped or did not help them abstain 
from drug use and any suggestions to improve the system. No personal health information will be collected during 
the focus groups, but we will record the focus groups so that we can transcribe responses after the groups are 
complete.  Participants, however, will not be identified on the recording or transcription.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
Patient subjects will also be asked to complete 4 surveys. The first survey will be filled out in person at the clinic 
and the other two surveys will be completed at 6 and 12 and 18 months after they have received the phone and Seva 
system. Patients can complete these surveys either on the phone or on paper, whichever they prefer. These surveys 
will take about 20 minutes to complete and will ask information about drug and alcohol use and potentially risky 
behavior (i.e., sharing needles, unprotected sex).  When patients use Seva they will also be asked how they are 
doing and about their recent alcohol and drug use.  As part of the Clinician Report, these questions will be sent 
weekly on the Seva system and will take about 2-4 minutes to complete. All questions are voluntary. Patients are 
free to refuse to answer any survey questions they are uncomfortable with.  However, by answering the weekly 
questions about their recent alcohol and drug use the Seva system can send the patient information to help them 
stay clean and sober.    In addition, the information will be sent to his/her clinical team so the clinic team can 
provide him/her with the support they need 
We propose that pre-post differences will reveal improvements in the following: 
 
Organization readiness for implementation and sustainability of the SUD system called Seva 
 
SUD care coordination between primary and specialty care systems 
 
Reduction in urgent and emergent care visits 
 
Patient satisfaction 
 
Patient perceived social support 
 
By tracking both frequency and duration of Seva use (hours, minutes, and seconds) this research will also determine 
how much Seva is used in a real world healthcare context: The data will be relevant to decisions about 
implementation, sustainability and dissemination of SUD technologies, especially via FHQCs where the 
intervention might be integrated with other aspects of routine patient care.  The Seva system will also use the 
phone’s GPS to monitor location to help support their recovery. Patients are not required to use this feature. They 
can turn it off at any time.  
 
The information being provided by patients is sensitive health information.  Patients are free to refuse to answer any 
survey questions they are uncomfortable with.  The objective of the study is to provide technology that will help the 
clinicians treat patients with SUDs better.  Without collecting this sensitive information a study like this could not 
be conducted as the very nature of the intervention is to allow clinicians to be better informed and provide treatment 
more responsively to their patients’ needs as they deal with addiction and other serious health issues.  All patients 
will be reminded that they are under no obligation to participate in this study, can withdraw from the study at any 
time, and in no way will their health care be effected by their participation in this study.  
 
3.0 
SELECTION OF PATIENTS   
 
The UW CHESS Research team will not have access to medical records.   Staff members from the Federally 
Qualified Health Centers (FHQC) as well as patients from those sites will be recruited as human subjects for this 
protocol.    
 
Recruitment will be conducted at three 3 FHQCs; Access Community Health Center in Madison, WI., Partnership 
Health Center Missoula, MT and The Institute for Family Health Bronx, NY. 
 
Clinician Subjects:  45 clinicians among the 3 FQHCs (15 at each site).  Staff members include MDs, behavioral 
health providers, RNs and management staff from the clinics’ primary care and behavioral health departments.  
Clinician must have an interest in the research objectives.  Clinician participation will be voluntary.   
 
Patient Subjects:  300 patients among the 3 FQHCs (100 at each site).  .  Patients must be 1) age 18 or older 2)  3) 
meet criteria for Substance Use Disorder (SUD) according to the  Severity of Dependence Scale.  Clinician subjects 
referring patients (Drs. Randall Brown, , Chantelle Thomas,  Jonas Lee and Mischa Ronick at Access) will ensure 
that patients: 4) have no current psychotic disorder severe enough to prevent participation, 5) have no acute medical 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
problem requiring immediate inpatient treatment, 6) are willing to use Seva, and 7) can understand and sign a 
consent form in English.  If a patient is incarcerated during the study their participation will be stopped. If they are 
still interested in participating in the study when released from jail they will be able to rejoin the study. Patient 
participation will be voluntary.   
 
 
4.0 
REGISTRATION PROCEDURES 
 
Clinician Subject Identification and Recruitment 
Prior to the start of the study, Dr Randall Brown and the UW research team will either meet with potential clinician 
subjects either 1:1 and/or present the study at an Access Clinic provider staff meeting to gauge the clinicians' 
interest in participating in the study. UW researchers will explain the study objectives and subject participation 
expectations during this meeting. UW Researchers will assure the providers that there is no obligation to participate 
in the study.  That their decision is voluntary and that their clinical practice will in no way be effected by their 
choice to participate or not.   The clinicians will be told they do not have to decide about participation during this 
meeting. They can take their time to think about it and either contact Dr Brown or the UW Research team at a later 
time. They will also be told they can drop from study participation at any time. Dr Brown and the UW Researchers 
will be available at anytime to answer questions about the study. This will ensure the Access clinicians do not feel 
pressured or coerced in any way.  UW Researchers will provide clinician subjects training on the Seva system prior 
to patient subject enrollment. 
 
Patient Subject Identification and Recruitment 
Drs. Randall Brown, Chantelle Thomas, Mischa Ronick, and Jonas Lee are clinicians at Access and also 
participating researchers (part of the research team).  They will review medical records to identify potentially 
eligible patient subjects. These clinicians have valid access to the EMR as part of their clinical role.  As part of 
routine care (at Access clinic) all patients will complete the Severity of Dependence Scale survey. This data will be 
used to assure the patient meets eligibility criteria. When potentially eligible patient subjects have been identified 
the clinician will inform the UW research team recruitment coordinator that there are potentially eligible patients 
coming into clinic. The UW research team recruitment coordinator will arrange to be in clinic to talk to any 
potentially interested patients. No protected health information will be shared with the UW research team 
recruitment coordinator prior to the patient giving permission.   
 
During the clinic appointment, the clinician will ask the patient if they are interested in hearing about the study.  If 
they are interested and give permission, the clinician will tell the UW research team recruitment coordinator there is 
a patient who is interested in hearing about the project. The clinician will not give the patient’s name to the UW 
research team recruitment coordinator.  In the privacy of a clinic exam room or private office the UW research team 
recruitment coordinator will explain the study, its benefits and potential risks of participation.  The UW research 
team recruitment coordinator will also answer any questions the patient subject may have. If the patient is interested 
in participating they will be asked to complete informed consent and the first online survey in the clinic during this 
first meeting. After the informed consent is complete the UW research team recruitment coordinator will schedule a 
training meeting between the subject and the recruiter. The training will involve instructions on how to use the 
smart phone, complete survey questions to acquaint the patient with online surveys ecological momentary 
assessment and setting up the patient’s profile and preferences (including if the patient allows the clinical team to 
assess the answers to their ecological momentary assessments and navigate the information and resources in Seva. 
This meeting will be scheduled at a time and place most convenient for the patient subject.  
 
No additional clinic visits will be required of patient subjects. The UW research team recruitment coordinator will 
have a private space in the clinic for meeting with patients to confirm eligibility, obtain consent, and conduct 
training. This private space will be either a regular exam room or private office in the clinic. Patients will have 
access to Seva for 12 months. Patients must agree to allow monitoring of their Seva usage.  Patients are not 
required to use the GPS monitoring system.  They can turn it off at any time.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
Intervention: 
The study will be conducted over a 12 month period.  All patient subjects will have access to the Seva system for 
12 months and clinician subjects will have access for the duration of the study. There will be no cost to subjects for 
participating in this research study. There will also be an 800 number available for technical support. Clinician and 
Patients subjects will also have access to the internet and will be able to use email if they choose to do so.  Use of 
the internet and email will not be tracked by the UW Research team.    
 
Clinician Subjects will be asked to participate in three (30-45 minute) focus groups where they will be asked about 
their impressions and experience using Seva, whether the system helped or did not help their clinical practice and 
any suggestions to improve the Seva system.  Clinicians will also be asked to refer appropriate patients to the 
research study team for possible study recruitment.  Additionally they will be asked to complete 7 surveys about 
their work environment and how their clinic is using/implementing the Seva recovery support system.   
Use of Seva: Clinician Subjects may use any or all of the elements of the Seva system, which combines the A- 
CHESS application that provides information and support to patients to help them maintain sobriety, the TES 
application which provides cognitive behavioral therapy based tutorials to improve decision making and help 
patients maintain sobriety and the Clinician Report which is a patient monitoring, clinical decision making and 
communication tool that allows patients to answer questions about their symptom status, current physical and 
emotional needs and concerns to be addressed by the clinicians at the next clinic visit.   The CR summarizes the 
data provided by patients and makes it available online to their clinicians and patients.  The CR also provides a 
graphical summary of the patient’s longitudinal data so both the patient and the clinician can view status changes 
over time.  Clinicians will receive a report from their patients participating in the study who elect to complete and 
send the information to their clinician.  To accommodate the ‘real word’ processes of busy clinical practice,  
Clinicians can designate one of their team, registered nurse (RN), nurse practitioner (NP) or physician assistant 
(PA) to receive the report for them. Patients will be told if the report goes to a designee.  This designee will be 
consented as a clinician subject for this protocol and have access to the Seva system.  The designee RN, NP or PA 
will receive the report and provide the information to the clinician for follow-up.  The clinical team can access the 
CR in three ways. First, the clinician (or designee) can log into Seva and then access a summary report of their 
patients. Second, for participating patients, the Seva system will generate an alert that is immediately sent to 
clinician (or designee) whenever the patient’s BAM responses exceed a threshold score patient’s BAM responses 
exceed a threshold score of 6 on a 0–7 scale or 1 on a reversed 0–7 scale for at least one symptom item. Finally, 
clinicians (or designee) can also receive a CR notification two days before a scheduled clinic visit.  The Clinician 
can then review the report and respond to the patient information accordingly.  These reports are private 
communication between the patient and their healthcare team.    
Patient Subjects:  A random sample of 15-20 participating patients will be asked to participate in three (30-45 
minute) focus groups where they will be asked about their opinion and experience using the Seva system and if the 
system helped or did not help them abstain from drug use and any suggestions to improve the system. No personal 
health information will be collected during the focus groups.  All patient subjects will also be asked to complete 4 
surveys. The first survey will be completed in person at the clinic and the other two surveys at 6,  12, and 18 
months after you have received the phone and Seva system. Patients can complete these surveys either on the phone 
or on paper, whichever they prefer. These surveys will take about 20 minutes to complete and will ask information 
about drug and alcohol use and potentially risky behavior (i.e., sharing needles, unprotected sex).   
Use of Seva: When patient subjects use Seva they will also be prompted to complete the CR. They will be asked 
how they are doing and about their recent alcohol and drug use. These questions will be sent weekly on the Seva 
system and will take about 2-4 minutes to complete.    All questions are voluntary. Patients are free to refuse to 
answer any survey questions they are uncomfortable with.  However, by answering the weekly questions about 
their recent alcohol and drug use the Seva system can send the patient information to help them stay clean and 
sober.  The information will be sent to his/her clinical team so the clinic team can provide him/her with the support 
they need.  If their responses exceed a threshold score of 6 on a 0–7 scale or 1 on a reversed 0–7 scale for at least 
one BAM symptom item the Seva system will generate an alert that is immediately sent to the clinician (or 
designee). The patient decides whether to answer the questions.  These reports are private communication between 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10
the patient and their healthcare team.   Using a self-selected username and password patient subjects will be able to 
access a discussion group within Seva to connect with other patient subjects. This discussion group will be 
monitored daily by UW research staff.  
The Seva recovery support system will automatically collect data on how often and for how long subjects use each 
of the various parts of the system. This data will be used to determine which parts of the system are the most useful 
and valuable.  This data will be kept in a secure, limited access, password-protected file service the UW Madison 
Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, 4th Floor Mechanical Engineering Building, 1513 University 
Avenue, Madison, WI 53706.  
 
Privacy and Confidentiality: 
 
Clinician Subjects: Clinician surveys will be distributed to clinic staff members by the UW recruitment coordinator 
and sent directly to the research team by respondents using self-addressed stamped envelopes. In survey responses, 
a code will be self-assigned by the respondent corresponding to the first two letters of their first name and the first 
two letters of their last name and the last number of their birth year  (e.g., for a person whose  name is Jan Donovan 
born 1967 would assign the code JA DO 7).  This approach to coding for staff de-identification has been reviewed 
and approved by the University of Wisconsin IRB in our previous organizational research studies. Staff members 
will not have access to one another’s responses in any form. Respondent identification will not be linked to survey 
responses. De-identified survey responses will be kept in a locked file in the CHESS office.  Staff could also feel 
coerced into participation.  To minimize this risk, the option to return a blank survey will be clearly stated.  
 
Data collected during focus groups will be identifiable for the researcher collecting the data.  Focus groups will be 
conducted by members the UW research team trained in qualitative research and in protecting patient 
confidentiality.  Data collected during the focus groups will not be identifiable to anyone other than the group 
facilitators.  The focus groups will be audio recorded and all responses transcribed after the groups are complete.  
Participants, however, will not be identified on the audio recording or transcription.  Clinician subject survey date 
will be coded as described above.  Research staff members that have access to the data for analysis purposes will 
not have access to subject names.  
Patient Subjects: To mitigate the risk of patient breaches of confidentiality, all subjects will be assigned a code 
number. A list of subject code numbers will be maintained by the project director and stored in a password-
protected spreadsheet. This data will be kept in a secure, limited access, password-protected file service on CHESS 
servers which are located in the Mechanical Engineering building on the 4th floor.  Other identifiable data entered 
on the subjects’ smartphones will be removed by the UW recruitment coordinator before it can be access by the 
research team.  The UW Research Coordinator will assist patient subjects in choosing codenames and passwords to 
use to login to the Seva system.  Patients will be instructed not to use their real names as a code name and will be 
warned of the potential dangers of divulging confidential information (e.g. real names or telephone numbers).   
 
There is a risk that information and resources provided in Seva will be used to the detriment of the subjects.  
Some potential risks include: 
 
The Seva recovery support program could give patient subjects wrong information. However, a panel of 
experts in the field of addiction looks at all information before it is put on the smart phone.  
 
Learning about sensitive issues (such as drug and alcohol use, mental health) while using the Seva recovery 
support program may cause anxiety, distress, embarrassment, or feelings of sadness. However, patient 
subjects do not have to answer any questions that they don’t want to answer. 
 
Patient subjects could receive wrong information from the Internet and/or discussion group. However, we 
will provide simple tips to help them figure out whether they can trust the information they receive from 
these sources. 
 
We will be collecting information on how the smart phone is used and may discover behavior that raises 
concern about harm to self or others. If we see anything that suggests that patient subjects or others face 

 
 
 
 
 
 
11
imminent risk of harm, we will contact appropriate others to intervene (e.g., your community mental health 
center, and/or police) 
 
The service to the smart phone is stopped after 12 months.  Patient subjects may feel some loss when they 
no longer have that service. 
 
If patient subjects smart phone is lost or stolen, we will not be able to replace it. They may feel some loss if 
this occurs. Also, any personal information that they’ve put on the phone could be seen by unknown others.   
 
If patient subjects are incarcerated or enter inpatient treatment during the study their participation will be 
stopped. If they are still interested in participating in the study when released from jail or inpatient 
treatment they will be able to rejoin the study.  
 
Patient subjects might use the phone for unintended harmful purposes such as procuring drugs or alcohol. 
 
Patient subjects will also be able to upload images of themselves onto the Seva system. Subjects will be 
informed of the risks involved in using identifying services as part of the informed consent process.   This 
is not required for participation in this study. 
To further protect subject confidentiality the Principal Investigator has received a Certificate of Confidentiality 
through the National Institutes of Health, which grants immunity from legal process to identifiable subject 
information. 
 
 
5.0 
TREATMENT PLAN   
 
There will be no randomization involved in this study. It is anticipated that 45 clinician subjects and 300 patient 
subjects will be recruited at the 3 participating Federally Qualified Health Centers.  Clinician subjects will have 
access to Seva for the duration of this implementation study at their respective FQHC. All patient subjects will have 
access to Seva for 12 months.  
 
 
6.0 
MEASUREMENT OF EFFECT 
 
The evaluation of our implementation strategy is built upon Glasgow’s RE-AIM model.1 RE-AIM has been used to 
plan and evaluate many disease management interventions. Gaglio and Glasgow2 found over 140 published studies 
that claim to have used the RE-AIM model, though few adopted the model with fidelity.3 Our evaluation uses the 
criteria Glasgow et al have set for “fully developed” use of RE-AIM. The labeling of outcomes as primary and 
secondary is challenging in the RE-AIM framework.  On the one hand, organization-wide impact on patients 
(effectiveness measures) are central and we have labeled them primary. But this is primarily a study of Seva’s 
impact on the organizations, where issues such as coordination of care, job satisfaction, and the cost of adopting 
and operating Seva are critical. Having said that, the primary outcomes attached to each dimension of the RE-
AIM4 framework are listed in italicized bold.  Other outcomes are listed in standard font.  
 
Adoption: The # and type of clinicians using Seva will be representative of the FQHCs’ clinicians. The RIS 
scores and provider attitudes toward SUD treatment will increase after Seva implementation 
 
Effectiveness:  The following outcomes will improve: # identified with SUD, # identified with HIV risk 
behaviors, % treated for SUD, Treatment attendance, Care coordination % reducing HIV risk behaviors, % 
reducing substance use, Time to treatment, # treated for HIV.  
 
Maintenance: Seva Cost effectiveness, costs of operation, Sustainability score, long-term effectiveness (see 
above), , will increase during the posttest period.  
 
Reach: the # and type of patients served by Seva are representative of SUD patients served by the FQHC 
 
Implementation: We describe Seva services used & when, by what patients and providers  
 
All quantitative analyses will be supplemented by qualitative research to help us understand the findings.  All 
outcomes will be assessed with as much sensitivity-fidelity in the baseline as in post-intervention periods, thus 

 
 
 
 
 
 
12
permitting unbiased assessment of performance from pre to post.  Exceptions include: (except Seva adoption and 
use, HIV risk behavior and substance use). The specific surveys to be used are referenced next to the outcome. All 
surveys are validated. Other data come from EMRs and Seva. 
As stated earlier, all patients will be reminded that they are under no obligation to participate in this study, can 
withdraw from the study at any time, and in no way will their health care be effected by their participation in this 
study.  
 
7.0  
STUDY PARAMETERS 
 
There will be no randomization involved in this study. It is anticipated that 45 staff subjects and 300 patient 
subjects will be recruited at the 3 participating Federally Qualified Health Centers.  Clinician subjects will have 
access to Seva for the duration of this implementation study at their respective FQHC. All patient subjects will have 
access to Seva for 12 months.  
 
 
8.0 
DRUG FORMULATION AND PROCUREMENT (if applicable) 
 
Not applicable. 
 
 
9.0 
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 
Research Design: We propose to examine the quality, speed, and impact of implementing Seva in primary care at 3 
FQHCs, using a stepped-wedge (or multiple-baseline) design.5 6 Using the clinic as the unit of analysis, this single-
subject approach7 will closely track the timing of intervention elements and repeatedly measure outcomes at the 
organizational level, including aggregated effects on clinicians, patients, and practices. 
The design includes a pilot-testing phase during which Seva will be introduced at Access Community Health 
Center in Madison, WI. After pilot testing and improving Seva and the overall implementation strategy, we will 
standardize the implementation process and Seva so that the elements of the intervention are held constant from one 
site to another. Then we will sequentially introduce Seva at 2 other FQHCs (The Institute for Family Health, Bronx, 
NY, and Partnership Health Care in Missoula, MT). In this single-subject, stepped-wedge design, each FQHC acts 
as its own pretest control, with 12 months of baseline data collection. The 6-month gap creating the stepped-wedge 
design will give us insight into seasonal variation in substance abuse. During the data collection period, core 
organizational indicators will be assessed every 2 months, many aggregated from EMRs. During the 24 months of 
Seva deployment at each site, log-file analysis will also produce daily metrics about patterns of system use. Our 
FQHCs are typical of other FQHCs and similar to one another on core criteria.  Responding to NIDA’s call for 
innovative research methods, this stepped-wedge design offers advantages compared to RCTs. This design costs 
less than randomizing the large sample of organizations required to run the inferential statistics associated with 
RCTs. It makes it easier to understand the dynamics of change processes (such as implementation) than RCTs do. It 
avoids the ethical problem in RCTs of withholding interventions from a proportion of participants who might 
benefit8. 
 
The single-subject approach9 10emphasizes recurrently tracking behaviors and practices in a “repeated time series” 
that permits the study of change patterns. The stepped-wedge designs that often accompany single-subject studies 
provide the intervention to all participants, but isolate the independent variable by introducing the intervention at 
specified points11. As Horner et al12 note, “to document experimental control, independent variables in single-
subject research are actively, rather than passively, manipulated. ”.  
 
While this design may not provide as strong a basis for causal inference as a large-scale experiment, this design is 
highly appropriate for the initial evaluation of a new innovative intervention strategy that targets patients, health 

 
 
 
 
 
 
13
care systems, and methods for adoption, implementation, and maintenance. It would be inappropriate to launch a 
major randomized trial without the preliminary evidence that will be produced in the proposed work and that will 
lay the groundwork for more expensive, and extensive, analysis.  
 
Cost measures: The sustainability of Seva will depend not just on its results but its cost. To be widely disseminated, 
Seva and its implementation must be cost effective. During the project, we will keep track of the following: 1) 
Development costs (time and effort spent by software developers for ongoing upgrades based on user feedback 
from the implementation process). 2) Setup costs (hardware and equipment such as smart phones issued to patients 
and tablet PCs used by clinicians to screen and access the registry). 3) Implementation costs (estimated allocations 
of clinician salaries for time spent recruiting and training new patients; setting up Seva and offering feedback; and 
attending required coaching and project management sessions). Any volunteer or other services provided free of 
charge during implementation will be documented. 4) Implementation costs (salaries for clinicians on the research 
team). Salary estimates for clinic and research clinician time include fringe benefits. Operating costs of the system 
consist mainly of the monthly phone/data charges for the patient smart phones and IT and clinician time required 
for data management and maintenance of the system. Any costs incurred by patients are expected to be minimal and 
are outside the scope of the evaluation. We will clearly separate research and clinical costs. 
 
Data sources: Data will be collected using: EMR (for patient subject identification only), staff surveys, Seva use 
data, administrative records, and qualitative focus groups.  FQHC clinicians will be asked to complete 7 surveys to 
collect readiness for implementation scores (RIS), and sustainability propensity scores (SI) (all validated 
instruments). Seva automatically records data on patient use of each service (e.g., times when the discussion group 
is entered and left) and movement from one service to another (e.g., a patient left a discussion group and went to 
relaxation exercises for 15 minutes). Seva also records test scores for each skills training module and sensor data 
(e.g., when a patient nears a high-risk location). Seva will also contain patient responses to Seva surveys on self-
report substance use, HIV risk behavior, depression, and healthcare utilization outside the clinic (e.g., specialty 
addiction treatment appointments, trips to the emergency room, etc.). Qualitative data will come from focus groups 
with clinical staff and patients.  To collect cost data, we will conduct a simple time study tracking project staff and 
clinician subjects’ time spent on study implementation related activities.  
 
 
Quantitative Analysis: Because this is a study of organizational impact of Seva, there will be no single patient 
analyses; all will be aggregated across patients.  As listed above, the primary outcome measures are:  % at risk 
who enter treatment for SUD, % reducing HIV risk behavior, average treatment attendance, RIS, and 
Sustainability Index. Analysis of these outcomes will proceed on 2 fronts: 1) Interrupted time series analysis will 
compare outcomes within a clinic before and after implementation using our primary outcome measures. Research 
questions will be tested using linear regression models, with each analysis having 2 time-series segments 
representing means and slopes before and after implementation. Given the limited degrees of freedom, no 
covariates will be included in the models. A test of the regression coefficient for implementation (a dichotomous 
variable indicating whether the time point occurred pre or post implementation) will allow us to examine 
differences in the mean change at implementation. Differences in slope from pre- to post-implementation will be 
tested using the coefficient for the implementation x month interaction, where month is a continuous variable 
indicating the month of measurement. Weighted least squares analysis will be used to account for potential 
differences in the number of patients or staff reporting outcomes within each clinic across time. Power. 
Observations from the NIATx 200 study provide estimates of baseline values and variability for the RIS, and 
Sustainability measures (5.05, 5, and 55, respectively). We assume no increase during time before implementation 
(i.e., pre-implementation slope of 0), while non-zero slopes are assumed post-implementation, due to both 
improved use of the system by clinic staff and additional patients entering the system over time. With a minimum 
of 6 time points measured before and after implementation, we will have adequate power (1-β ≥ .8, α = .05) to 
detect a 20% total increase in our primary outcomes of interest within each clinic. Using estimates based on clinic 
reported outcomes from 2010, we will also have adequate power to detect a 20% increase in the average percent of 
patients entering treatment for SUD.  2) Drawing from conventional approaches to single-subject analysis, we will 

 
 
 
 
 
 
14
also compare within and across the clinics using visualization of the data13 to determine whether the shift from 
baseline to intervention phases of the study generated shifts in the level, trend, and variability of 
performance.12 This will allow us to evaluate the immediacy, consistency, and magnitude of the observed effects.13 
The visual analysis will be strengthened by including non-equivalent control time series. 
 
Qualitative Analysis: We will use an integrative, mixed quantitative and qualitative method approach to determine 
the extent to which implementation and sustainability of Seva improve RE-AIM framework goals: reach, 
effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Our mixed-methods research is influenced by “Best 
Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences” (Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences 
Research). Because facilitators and barriers associated with RE-AIM rely on the intervention (i.e., Seva), the 
organization (e.g., staff, infrastructure), and implementation process (i.e., PPM, NIATx, and Rogers), we will use 
qualitative research methods to understand how they affect RE-AIM outcomes.  Specifically, we will: 1) Tailor 
Seva to each FQHC and document and evaluate processes used in the tailoring.  Focus groups data will help us 
understand these processes (months 6-12).  2) Provide insights into the quantitative results by using the mixed-
method research model we employed to evaluate the VA’s mental health systems redesign. We will interview key 
stakeholders following each wave of surveys. As within- and across-site findings emerge from RIS, and 
Sustainability data, we will interview people who can help inform the findings. 3) Understand the barriers to and 
facilitators of implementing and sustaining Seva and how they relate to outcomes. Key stakeholders will be asked 
to reflect on reach, outcomes, adoption at the setting level, staff participation, implementation, and long-term 
effects.  4) Ask informants to reflect upon how they might advise a similar FQHC in integrating Seva. Qualitative 
analysis is labor-intensive. Hence we will carefully select people who can best inform our questions, while limiting 
the number of interviews. We will collect, transcribe, and analyze (via NVIVO-9), researcher, counselor, and 
FQHC staff field notes and interviews collected during RE-AIM phases. The qualitative analysis will follow 
grounded theory to build a conceptual model of Seva’s implementation.14 Two researchers will independently and 
then together analyze 6 interviews that represent different organization-level stakeholders. Because RIS, OCM, and 
Sustainability factors as well as RE-AIM components are associated with adoption and sustainability, we will 
include them as a priori themes, while seeking new insights from the interviews. Researchers will then code the 
remaining interviews, comparing themes to distinguish different types of organizations and conditions. To assure 
coding consistency, every fourth interview will be double-coded. Significant inconsistencies will be discussed and 
recoded. Finally, we will categorize the themes into a working model.  
 
Cost-effectiveness analysis: Conventional cost effectiveness analysis compares the costs and effects of different 
interventions assigned in parallel. In contrast, the stepped-wedge design allows each clinic to serve as its own 
control,6 an approach similar to one used in a study of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm.15 When FQHCs 
use Seva to screen for drug use and identify potential subjects, patients who report drug use will be asked to report 
any hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits in the previous 6 months. Patient self-report has been 
validated as a means of assessing healthcare utilization in homeless and injection-drug-using populations.16 17 The 
validity of self-report improves with shorter recall periods and less frequent utilizations.18 Provided other inclusion 
criteria are met, a patient screening positive for drug use is eligible for the study and will be invited to participate. 
The same measures of healthcare utilization (hospitalizations and ED visits) will be monitored in bi-monthly 
surveys of patients during the 12-month period they use Seva. Changes in the rate of healthcare utilization between 
the 6-month period before and the 12-month period after invitation are coupled with implementation and operating 
costs to generate 2 primary cost-effectiveness measures: cost per avoided hospitalization and cost per avoided ED 
visit. These cost-effectiveness measures will be aggregated to the clinic level. It is hypothesized that patient and 
clinician use of Seva will produce cost savings by reducing utilization of high-cost services among the drug-using 
population.   
 
 
10.0 
PATHOLOGY REVIEW 
 
Not applicable. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
15
 
 
11.0 
RECORDS TO BE KEPT 
 
 
Subject Intake  
 
Subject Demographics 
 
Subject Consent Forms 
 
HIPAA Authorization  Form 
 
Baseline and follow up survey data 
 
De-identified Seva Use data    
 
 
12.0 
PATIENT CONSENT AND PEER JUDGMENT 
 
Potential subjects will be informed of: (1) the nature and purpose of the study, (2) the types of data which will be 
collected, (3) what will be given to study participants, (4) the measures taken to ensure confidentiality of data 
collected and HIPAA regulations privacy protection, (5) and the timeline of the study. Signed consent forms will be 
obtained from each subject and kept securely at UW Center for Health Systems Studies (CHESS). Potential 
subjects will be clearly informed that their treatments will be in no way affected by their decision to join, or not to 
join the study.  
 
It is anticipated that recruitment for this study will begin in June 2013 upon receipt of IRB approval and completion 
of the technical development. Subject consent forms are included with this submission. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
16
Appendix A 
Revised 2/2010 
 
Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies 
Data Security and Monitoring Plan 
 
In accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) the following Data Security 
and Monitoring Plan has been instituted at the Center.   
 
The following policies have been adopted by the Center: 
 
I. Appointment of Center Data Security Officers. 
A. Susan Dinauer and Matt Wright are the security officers for the Center. 
B. Responsibilities of the security officers include: 
 
Developing information technology (IT) security policies 
 
Increasing security awareness for all Center faculty and Team Members 
 
Providing virus protection for IT resources 
 
Maintaining security patches on computing equipment 
 
Developing and implementing back up procedures 
 
Performing periodic vulnerability scanning on computers 
 
Reviewing and updating firewall strategies and policies 
 
Enhancing the physical security of IT resources 
 
II. Policy for Orientation and Training 
A. All Center students, faculty and staff are required to complete the UW-Madison Human Subjects 
training on-line.  https://my.gradsch.wisc.edu/citi/index.php  (You register with your WiscID.  Select 
the training program for Biomedical Researchers, social & Behavioral Researchers, or both.  Team 
members who work on projects that are reviewed by the health Sciences IRB should complete the 
combined (both) training; otherwise the social and Behavioral training would be fine.  Please contact 
me if you are not sure about which one to complete.  You will also need to complete one elective.) 
B. Successful completion of this training is required before any Team Member is allowed access to Center 
data.  Certificate of completion must be given to a Center Data Security Officer. 
C. All Center Team Members are required to complete an on-line training course on the HIPAA Privacy 
Rule training http://ptehipaa.doit.wisc.edu/moodle/login/index.php Certificate of completion must be 
given to the Center Data Security Officer.   (Note:  You will be asked a series of questions when you 
register.  Sign-up as HIPAA Shared.  We are not a member of the HCC, but we do work with the HCC; 
PHI is used in our research but not for teaching.  You will be completing HIPAA 101 and Use & 
Disclosure sections of the training.) 
D. All Center Team Members are required to complete training on Center security procedures and 
policies.   
E. Sign the “Center Data Security Policy Certification” upon completion of this training.  
 
III. Workstation Policy 
A. All workstations will require login with a unique user name and password. 
B. All workstations are required to be joined to the ENGR domain under the control of the College of 
Engineering. 
C. All workstations are required to use anti-virus software that can be remotely administered from the 
College of Engineering domain. 
D. Users will log-out from or lock workstations when leaving them unattended.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
17
E. Screen savers will be configured to require a password and to activate after ten minutes of workstation 
inactivity. 
F. Users requiring remote access to the Center network will only do so with computers specifically 
certified by a Center Data Security Officer.  
 
IV. Password Policy 
A. Users will require a password to access any computer connecting to the Center network.   
B. Passwords must meet the requirements of the Computer Aided Engineering department (CAE).  CAE 
password construction help can be found here: http://www.cae.wisc.edu/passwrdhlp. 
C. Passwords may not be stored in proximity to the workstation and may not be shared by others. 
 
V. Policy for the Use of Email 
A. Patient Identifiable, Confidential or Personnel Data may only be included in an encrypted attachment 
and should never be sent in the body or subject line of an email message. 
B. Team Members who need to send encrypted attachments should contact a Center Data Security Officer 
to schedule a training session.  
 
VI. Policy for Storage, Retrieval, and Disposal of Protected Information 
A. Any Patient Identifiable, Confidential or Personnel Data in electronic form will be stored on secure 
servers only and may not be stored on individual workstations.  Currently, the only place such 
information can be stored is the R: Drive. 
B. All paper-based files will be stored in locked rooms inside locked file cabinets with limited access. 
C. Servers containing Patient Identifiable, Confidential or Personnel Data must be located within the 
Mechanical Engineering Server Room which can only be accessed via security card. 
D. The Center Data Security Officers will be responsible for assigning and restricting access to shared 
resources on the Center servers.   
E. Patient Identifiable, Confidential, and Personnel Data as a general rule may not be copied to or stored 
on the Center’s publicly accessible servers at any time (currently CHESS1, CHESS2, and CHESS4).  
However, in some studies, patient’s name, disease state, and physician are stored within the Center 
program.  This information is only accessible via a codename/password. 
F. Remote access to files on the secure Center servers will be provided in a very limited case only through 
a Remote Desktop connection from a certified Center Workstation (See Center Workstation policy 
above for details). 
G. Storage media containing Patient Identifiable, Confidential or Personnel Data will be rendered 
unusable before disposal. 
H. All back up media will be stored in locked rooms with limited access. 
 
VII. Policy for the use of portable and home equipment and the transport of data media containing 
Patient Identifiable, Confidential, and Personnel Data 
A. All computers being used from outside the Center to access the Center network must be certified by the 
Center Data Security Officer. 
B. All computers being used from outside the Center to access the Center network must have Firewall 
software (such as Windows Firewall) installed and activated. 
C. All computers being used from home to access the Center network must have all wireless connections 
disabled. 
D. All home and portable computers and PDAs on which Patient Identifiable, Confidential, and Personnel 
Data files are used, on which user account information is temporarily stored, or that access the Center 
network must comply with the policies for workstations listed above. 
E. Use of Patient Identifiable, Confidential, and Personnel Data files offsite must comply with security 
policies and procedures developed for data use within the Center. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
18
F. Patient Identifiable, Confidential, and Personnel Data files may not be transported from the Center 
unless the device/medium is monitored for physical security at all times. 
G. Team members who place files on portable* and home computers must delete these files as soon as 
they are finished using them.  Quarterly reminders will be sent to the team to facilitate compliance with 
this requirement.  (*thumb drives, laptops, anywhere a file is placed with confidential information) 
 
VIII. Policy governing the storage and use of audiovisual materials 
A. Audiovisual media containing Patient Identifiable, Confidential, and Personnel Data are governed by 
the same policies and procedures that apply to handling and use of computerized data, including 
disposal, storage and access to media. 
B. Such audiovisual media may not be transported from the Center unless the material is monitored for 
physical security at all times. 
 
IX. Policy governing the transmission of information via fax 
A. All outgoing correspondence via fax must be stripped of confidential information. 
B. Before confidential information is transmitted to the Center via fax, the sender must notify the 
appropriate Center Team Member to ensure that the recipient is available to pick up the fax document. 
 
X. Field hardware policy 
A. Upon their return, all Center study computers, smartphones, or other devices that have been used in the 
field will have all data wiped from the hard drive in compliance with DOD standards. 
B. Field computers will be stored at the Center in a wiped state. 
 
XI. Study participant information. 
A.  Center Team Members will not share or talk about confidential information regarding the CHESS 
study participant with anyone who is not directly involved in the management of the CHESS Project.   
B. Confidential or other sensitive information regarding the study participant cannot be left in an 
unsecured place where others may see it.   
C. Copies of written correspondence about the study participants with anyone other than CHESS 
management cannot be provided, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Project Director.  
 
XII. User Responsibilities 
A. All Center Team Members are responsible for adhering to the Center Data Security Policies at all 
times. 
B. All Center Team Members will be given a comprehensive briefing session upon hire. 
C. Usernames and passwords are not to be shared with others. 
D. No equipment may be connected to the Center network without specific prior certification by a Center 
Security Officer. 
E. Specifically, no wireless access points may be deployed or connected to the network under any 
circumstances. 
F. The Center Data Security Officers will maintain records to insure that all Center Team Members have 
been briefed. 
G. The Center Data Security Officers will provide periodic refresher sessions to all Center Team 
Members. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
19
References 
                                                     
1 Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health 
promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. 
2 Gaglio, B., & Glasgow, R. E. (in press). Evaluation approaches for dissemination and implementation 
research. In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, & E. K. Proctor (Eds), Dissemination and Implementation 
Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. 
3 Glasgow, R. Personal communication. September 18, 2011. 
4 Glasgow, R. E., Klesges, L. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Bull, S. S., & Estabrooks, P. (2004). The future of health 
behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? 
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27(1), 3-12. 
5 Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: 
Houghton Mifflin. 
6 Brown, C. A., & Lilford, R. J. (2006). The stepped wedge trial design: A systematic review. BMC Medical 
Research Methodology, 6, 54. 
7 Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford 
University Press. 
8 Biglan, A., Ary, D., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2000). The value of interrupted time-series experiments for community 
intervention research. Prevention Science, 1(1), 31-49. 
9 Morgan, D. L., & Morgan, R. K. (2001). Single-participant research design: Bringing science to 
managed care. American Psychologist, 56(2), 119-127. 
10 Kearns, K. P. (1986). Flexibility of single-subject experimental designs. Part II: Design selection and arrangement 
of experimental phases. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 204–214. 
11 Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. 
2nd Ed. New York: Pergamon. 
12 Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005).The use of single-subject 
research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179. 
13 Bobrovitz, C. D., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (1998). Comparison of visual inspection and statistical analysis 
of single-subject data in rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 
77(2), 94-102. 
14 Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge 
University Press 
15 Wilmink, A. B. M., Quick, C. R. G., Hubbard, C. Sff., & Day, N. E. (2003). Effectiveness and cost of screening for 
abdominal aortic aneurysm: Results of a population screening program. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 38(1), 72-77. 
16 Gelberg, L., & Siecke, N. (1997). Accuracy of homeless adults' self-reports. Medical Care, 35(3), 287-290. 
17 Palepu, A., Strathdee, S. A., Hogg, R. S., Anis, A. H., Rae, S., Cornelisse, P. G. A., Patrick, D. M., 
O’Shaughnessy, M. V., & Schechter, M. T. (1999). The social determinants of emergency department and hospital 
use by injection drug users in Canada. Journal of Urban Health, 76(4), 409-418. 
18 Bhandari, A., & Wagner, T. (2006). Self-reported utilization of health care services: Improving measurement and 
accuracy. Medical Care Research and Review, 63(2), 217-235.