WED-101 - Development and Implementation of a Mixed-methods Program Evaluation Plan of Moud-supportive Recovery Housing

Brief Abstract Summary: The development and implementation of a successful and sustainable multi-level, mixed-methods program evaluation plan can be a challenging task. Since 2021, researchers and community partners have collaborated to open and evaluate 15 level II and III recovery homes in Texas for people taking medications for an opioid use disorder (MOUD). Data are being collected at the individual, organizational, community, and policy levels to understand the program's impact and inform the field. This presentation will describe and critique the evaluation plan, highlighting components that have worked well as well as challenges that emerged and strategies employed to overcome challenges. While a brief overview of some key findings will be provided to illustrate the impact of the program evaluation plan, the focus will be on methods for creating and sustaining a university-community partnership to develop and implement a multi-level, mixed-methods program evaluation.

Detailed abstract description:

Background: Since 2021, researchers at UTHealth Houston have collaborated with community partners to open and evaluate level II and III accredited recovery homes for people taking medications for an opioid use disorder (MOUD). Within the Project HOMES network are 15 recovery homes located in El Paso, Midland, San Angelo, Austin, and Houston, Texas. UTHealth Houston’s researchers had expertise in health promotion and behavioral sciences, health economics, biostatistics, and big data. Community partners include housing operators, recovery community organizations, a health information exchange, and a university-operated statewide health care data center. This unique collaboration has allowed for an innovative evaluation study.

Methods: A mixed-methods, multi-level evaluation plan was developed and implemented in collaboration with community partners; data collection, analysis, and dissemination are ongoing. Individual-level data sources were collected using individual and group interviews with residents, longitudinal surveys, and biomarkers. Organizational-level data were collected through individual and group interviews with housing staff, review of policies and procedures from the homes, and collection of longitudinal organizational-level financial and linkage-to-care metrics. Data from the health information exchange and data center regarding healthcare utilization were utilized to describe community-level impacts, while a review of state-level legislation was conducted to examine policy-level impacts on the project. Throughout the data analysis and dissemination process, community partners participate in in-person and virtual member checks and often co-author presentations and publications.


Results: The ongoing, collaborative approach to program evaluation has sustained buy-in of the project funder, researchers, and community partners. To date, the team has published ten peer-reviewed manuscripts and one peer-reviewed abstract, and presented 39 oral or poster conference presentations. Additional publications and conference abstracts are in development or under review. To aid in the dissemination of lessons learned to the broader recovery housing community, one to two-page infographics were created at a sixth to eighth-grade reading level. A health communication expert was recently added to the team to identify and implement other accessible dissemination strategies that can be sustained over time.

Discussion: This presentation will describe and critique the evaluation plan, highlighting components that have worked well as well as challenges that emerged and strategies employed to overcome challenges. While a brief overview of some findings will be provided to illustrate the impact of the program evaluation plan, the focus of this presentation will be on helping attendees conceptualize how to create and sustain a university-community partnership to develop and implement a multi-level, mixed-methods program evaluation.