Addiction stigma and the production of impediments to take-home naloxone uptake

How do relational practices co-constitute care for people who use drugs? The social and political dimensions of peer-led harm reduction

INTRODUCTION

People who use drugs have a long history of mobilising to reduce harm within their communities, significantly influencing harm reduction efforts globally. Peers with lived experience contribute through needle exchange programs, harm reduction education, and community-based research. Despite facing stigma, their initiatives have generated multiple benefits for communities. Collaborations between peers and researchers are increasingly recognised, emphasising meaningful participation in decisions affecting their lives. This paper focuses on the role of peers in mitigating drug-related risks and harms through community care.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 people who use drugs, exploring peer support and harm reduction. Data were analysed by the lead author and a coding framework was developed in which key theme-categories were organised. Theoretical framing from science and technology studies informed analysis, recognising the political dimensions of research.

RESULTS

Peers play a crucial role in bridging gaps in formal services, offering stigma-free, relational care spaces. These spaces, both physical and social, affirm dignity and solidarity, countering marginalisation. Participants highlight the importance of peer involvement in driving change, promoting safer use practices, and advocating for a holistic harm reduction approach that considers systemic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data highlight the vital role of peer connections and peer-led harm reduction practices in fostering safety, solidarity, and connection among communities of people who use drugs. Future research should continue to explore peer-led initiatives within evolving healthcare contexts, considering broader social dynamics and employing innovative conceptual frameworks to promote equitable peer-led harm reduction strategies.

Correlates of stocking naloxone: a cross-sectional survey of community pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Provision of take-home naloxone (THN) and overdose education reduces opioid-related mortality. In Australia, from July 2022, all Australian community pharmacies were eligible to supply naloxone for free through the national THN Program.

AIM

This study aimed to identify naloxone stocking rates and correlates of stocking naloxone across Australian pharmacies.

METHOD

Data were collected from a representative sample of Australian pharmacists in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia via an online survey. Data collected included pharmacy and pharmacist characteristics and services offered within the pharmacy, including needle and syringe programs, opioid agonist treatment (OAT) and stocking naloxone. Binary probit regression analysis was used to identify correlates of stocking naloxone after controlling for key covariates.

RESULTS

Data from 530 pharmacists were analysed. In total, 321 pharmacies (60.6%) reported stocking naloxone. Chain pharmacies and pharmacies that provided OAT had a greater probability of stocking naloxone (B = 0.307, 95%CI: [0.057, 0.556], and B = 0.543, 95%CI: [0.308, 0.777] respectively). Most (61.7%) pharmacists felt comfortable discussing overdose prevention with patients who use prescription opioids, and this comfort was associated with a higher probability of stocking naloxone (B = 0.392, 95%CI: 0.128, 0.655). Comfort discussing overdose prevention with people who use illicit opioids was lower (49.4%) and was not associated with stocking naloxone.

CONCLUSION

There is scope to increase stocking of naloxone and comfort with overdose prevention, particularly through addressing comfort working with higher risk groups such as people who use illicit opioids.

Naloxone Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Overdose Response Among Family Members of People who Misuse Opioids

Providing family members of individuals with opioid use disorders (OUD) naloxone is a cost-effective way to prevent overdose deaths. However, misconceptions and negative attitudes towards naloxone hinder family engagement with naloxone programs. This study examines factors associated with knowledge and attitudes toward naloxone among adults with close family members who misused opioids. Adults with family members (parent, step-parent, child, spouse, sibling, or step-sibling) who misused opioids (N = 299) completed a web-based survey. Participants were recruited through treatment providers, community groups, and social media. Surveys assessed naloxone knowledge, attitudes toward overdose response, demographics, completion of naloxone training, attitude toward medications for OUD, and family members' overdose history. Multiple regression was used to identify factors associated with naloxone knowledge (Model 1) and attitudes toward overdose response (Model 2). A graduate degree (B = .35, p < .003) and a history of overdose (B = 0.21, p = .032) were associated with greater naloxone knowledge. Age (B = .11, p < .001), race/ethnicity (B = -1.39, p = .037), naloxone training (B = 2.70, p < .001), and more positive attitude toward medications for OUD (B = 1.50, p = .003) were associated with attitudes toward overdose response. Family members are potential allies in reducing drug overdose deaths, and families may need broader education about naloxone. Awareness of previous overdose was associated with greater naloxone knowledge. Findings related to race/ethnicity suggest the need to reach family members of minoritized racial groups to provide access to naloxone training. Findings point to where education and distribution efforts may focus on increasing knowledge and improving attitudes among those closest to people with OUD.

Remaking the 'angry Narcanned subject': Affording new subject positions through take-home naloxone training

Naloxone is a medication used to reverse opioid overdose. Alongside its lifesaving effects, it also has a reputation for producing distress, aggression and occasionally violence upon administration. This article analyses how take-home naloxone (THN) training initiatives address naloxone's reputation for producing aggression and conflict, and how new subject positions emerge in the context of this training. While the role of naloxone in producing aggression has been discussed in a range of research, this work emphasises that such conflict is neither inevitable nor even likely because it is contingent on several other issues such as administration practices. Building on this scholarship, we work with Bruno Latour's theorisation of technological 'affordances' to analyse THN as a socially co-produced technology that, rather than either determining or neutrally communicating actions and effects, 'affords' possibilities, capacities and subjects. Analysing data drawn from observations of THN training in Victoria, Australia, and in-depth interviews with training participants, we argue that the issue of conflict upon revival affords a subject position we term the 'angry Narcanned subject'. This subject, we note, has come to hold a powerful position in understandings of naloxone, not least because it tends to accord with stereotypes of antisocial drug users. From here, we argue that a much of THN training is focused on challenging and reframing naloxone's reputation for conflict and questioning related subject positions, especially that of the angry Narcanned subject. We argue that this process of challenging and reframing affords two new subject positions for consumers: the 'capable administrator' and the 'calmer revivee'. We conclude that while THN training affords multiple, potentially positive, subject positions, unless these initiatives are accompanied by broader interventions such as decriminalisation campaigns, they may inadvertently responsibilise people who consume opioids for addressing overdose and erase the role of prohibition, criminalisation and stigmatisation in producing overdose events.

Improving understandings of trauma and alcohol and other drug-related problems: A social research agenda

Trauma is increasingly understood to shape a range of alcohol and other drug (AOD)-related problems, including addiction, relapse, mental illness and overdose. However, the merits of understanding AOD-related problems as the effect of trauma are uncertain with the nature and implications of such linkages requiring closer scrutiny. Where trauma is linked to AOD-related problems, this relationship is typically treated as self-evident, obscuring the uncertainties in knowledge surrounding the notion of trauma itself. Informed by insights from critical drugs and trauma scholarship that challenge deterministic notions of AOD 'problems' and trauma, this essay identifies key issues for social research in this area that warrant further consideration. We argue that there is a pressing need to acknowledge variation and diversity in the relationship between trauma and AOD-related problems, and the gendered and sexual dynamics shaping the expansion of the trauma paradigm. We then outline how critical Indigenist interdisciplinary work can inform culturally specific knowledge on trauma and AOD-related problems, and also suggest targeted research on the delivery and experience of trauma-informed approaches in the AOD context. To this end, we present several recommendations for a social research agenda underpinned by critical, qualitative research into how people experience and manage trauma and AOD-related problems in their everyday lives.

The effects of race and class on community-level stigmatization of opioid use and policy preferences

BACKGROUND

With opioid use and overdose rates continuing to plague minority communities in the U.S., we explored whether a geographic community's racial composition and social class affect how opioid use in the community is stigmatized and what policy preferences arise in response.

METHODS

We use case vignettes in a randomized, between-subjects study (N = 1478) with a nation-wide survey. The vignettes describe a community where opioids are harmfully used, varying whether the community was (1) wealthy or poor, (2) predominantly Black or White and (3) facing prevalent use of painkillers or heroin. We tested how these variables affect public stigmatization of opioid use (measured with ratings of responsibility, dangerousness, sympathy, concern, anger, and disappointment) preferred levels of social distance from communities with opioid use (measured with responses to questions about living, working, and interacting in the community), and policy preferences for responding to opioid use (measured with levels of support for providing a safe-consumption site in the community, treating drug use in the community punitively, treating drug use in the community as an illness, and funding drug treatment in the community through income redistribution).

RESULTS

Compared to wealthy communities with opioid use, poor communities with opioid use were less stigmatized in terms of responsibility, sympathy, concern, anger, and disappointment; they were also met with less support for punitiveness, more support for treating drug use as an illness, and preferences for greater social distance. Compared to White communities with opioid use, Black communities with opioid use were less stigmatized in terms of responsibility, and they were met with stronger preferences to not live and work there and with reduced support for using income redistribution to provide drug treatment for people in the community. Poor-Black communities with opioid use were also perceived to be more dangerous than both poor-White and wealthy-Black communities with opioid use.

CONCLUSION

These results point to class- and race-based territorial stigma affecting how communities with opioid use are judged and whether policies for providing communities with treatment are supported.

Developing a single-session strategy for the implementation of take-home naloxone by community pharmacists using COM-B and design-thinking

Background

Despite the overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness, there is poor implementation of take-home naloxone by pharmacists. Barriers have been explored and mapped to the capability, opportunity, motivation-behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour change, yet no theoretically informed implementation strategies that target known barriers have been developed. Single-session implementation strategies have been proposed as a simple, scalable way to target multiple barriers.

Methods

Qualitative participatory methods, incorporating design-thinking principles, were used to develop the key messages of a single-session implementation strategy. The key messages were drafted against COM-B mapped implementation barriers identified in the literature. A participatory workshop involving a pre-mortem exercise and incorporating design-thinking principles were used to refine the messages and generate methods for dissemination. Messages were mapped to interview questions to naturally illicit stories and delivered via storytelling from a pharmacist, a general practitioner, and a person with lived experience of using naloxone.

Results

A 3 minute 40 second video and a two-page printable infographic were developed and hosted on a website, with links to additional downloadable resources as a single-session implementation strategy. Email was the preferred method for receiving simple professional development communications, with social media also widely accessed.

Discussion

Implementation science, behavioural change theory, and participatory design methods are a complementary combination to develop implementation strategies. Some pharmacists questioned the participatory design approach to developing an implementation strategy, as it was outside of their comfort zone. However, the participatory process involving end-users resulted in unique ideas that are unlikely to have been generated using more traditional consultative approaches. The delivery as a single-session implementation strategy allows for widespread dissemination and delivery at scale.

"It can save your life, that's all I know," barriers and facilitators for engagement in take-home naloxone for people receiving opioid substitution treatment in regional Australia: An explorative study

Engagement in take-home naloxone (THN) programs by people receiving opioid substitution treatment (OST) in Australia is low despite methadone being a significant contributor to opioid overdose deaths. Our aim was to explore barriers and facilitators for OST patients to engage in THN. We used a descriptive qualitative design with thematic analysis to gain insight into naloxone uptake by people engaged in an OST program in regional Australia. Eleven participants were interviewed; eight had previously engaged with THN. Barriers to THN included limited knowledge and understanding, lack of information, and not personally experiencing an overdose. Facilitators included having a traumatic experience of overdose, knowledge and understanding of THN and overdose, empowerment in carrying naloxone, and expanding THN programs. Support for the expansion of THN programs is desired among participants, and widespread peer distribution is understood to be the key to success. This study found that prior traumatic experience of overdose facilitates acceptance of THN, and being offered THN was the most important factor in engagement. Less clear is how to engage people who lack a traumatic overdose experience.

Disease-related stigma among people who inject drugs in Toronto amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Stigma overwhelmingly affects people who inject drugs. The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for people who inject drugs, who are already stigmatized as being "dangerous and spreading disease." The present study explored ways in which stigma was experienced by a sample of people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada following COVID-related public health precaution measures.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with people who inject drugs (n = 24) recruited from supervised consumption sites in Toronto, Canada. The semi-structured interview guide focused on the impact of COVID-19 on participants' health and social well-being. Interviews took place six-months after initial COVID-19 precautions (September-October 2020). We used thematic analysis to examine findings, with stigma being an emergent theme.

Results

Participants described heightened acts of stigma after COVID-19 restrictions were implemented, including feeling treated as "diseased" and the cause of COVID-19's spread. They reported being less likely to receive emergency care during events such as overdoses. Participants perceived increased disease-related stigma evident through actions of stigma, including amplified dehumanization by the public, others avoiding all contact with them, and more discrimination by police and hospital systems.

Conclusion

Participants provided specific examples of how stigmatizing behaviors harmed them after COVID-19 precautions began. It is plausible that stigma contributed to the dramatic increase in fatal overdoses, difficulty accessing housing, and further difficulty accessing needed healthcare in our setting. Integrating evidence-based harm reduction approaches in areas where stigma is evident might offset harms stemming from disease-related stigma and mitigate these harms during future public health emergencies.

The Impact of Naloxone Coprescribing Mandates on Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths

INTRODUCTION

Since 2017, a total of 10 states have mandated naloxone coprescribing intended to prevent fatal opioid overdoses. This study aims to assess the association between naloxone coprescribing/offering mandates and opioid-involved overdose deaths on the basis of the opioid type.

METHODS

Data on overdose deaths from 1999 to 2020 came from the National Center for Health Statistics CDC WONDER Online Database. This study examined deaths stratified by illicit/synthetic opioids and prescription/treatment opioids. Difference-in-difference negative binomial regression models estimated average marginal effects and 95% CIs. Covariates included opioid dispensing rate, Good Samaritan law, pharmacy-based naloxone access law, mandatory use of prescription drug monitoring program, and recreational cannabis dispensaries. Data collection and analysis were conducted in 2022.

RESULTS

Ten states implemented naloxone coprescribing/offering mandates during the period. Coprescribing/offering mandates significantly reduced the number of prescription/treatment overdose deaths by 8.61 per state per quarter (95% CI= -15.13, -2.09), a 16% reduction from the counterfactual estimates. Coprescribing/offering mandates did not significantly impact illicit/synthetic overdose deaths (average marginal effect=0.32; 95% CI= -18.27, 18.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Coprescribing/offering mandates prevent overdose deaths for its target population, individuals using prescription/treatment opioids. These mandates do not appear to impact populations using illicit/synthetic opioids; thus, expanded efforts are needed to reach these individuals.

Public Perceptions of Community Pharmacy-Based Naloxone Services: A National Cross-Sectional Survey

Little is known about the general public's perceptions regarding community pharmacist-delivered naloxone services at the national level. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to describe the US general public's awareness, knowledge, beliefs, comfort, perceived barriers, abilities, and communication preferences related to community pharmacy-based naloxone services. A national, online cross-sectional survey was conducted in September 2021 among US adults ≥18 years recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Primary outcome measures were assessed via 5-point Likert-type scales, including: (1) naloxone awareness and knowledge; (2) naloxone beliefs; (3) comfort with pharmacist-provided naloxone; (4) perceived barriers to pharmacy-based naloxone; (5) opioid overdose competencies, concerns, and readiness; and (6) preferred pharmacist-patient naloxone communication strategy. Analyses included descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to assess predictors of preferred communication strategies. Of 301 respondents, 82.1% were White, 48.8% female, and mean 43 years. Eighty-five percent were unaware of pharmacy-provided naloxone and mean [SD] knowledge score was low (29.3% [16.8]). Mean [SD] beliefs (3.78 [0.61]) and comfort (3.70 [0.54]) were positive, while perceived barriers were low/neutral (2.93 [0.78]). For communication, 54% preferred general advertisement, 32.9% universal offer, and 13.3% targeted offer. The odds of preferring a general advertisement or universal offer over a targeted offer increased with greater awareness (AOR:4.52; p = 0.003) and comfort (AOR:3.79; p = 0.003), and decreased with greater competence (AOR:0.35; p = 0.001). Although awareness and knowledge regarding community pharmacy-based naloxone services was low, beliefs and comfort were positive and perceived barriers were low/neutral. General or universal offers of naloxone were preferred over targeted approaches. Future studies should test the impact of communication strategies on naloxone uptake.

An observational study of the extent of naloxone furnishing in California Central Valley community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

California has sought to expand medication access and improve public health by authorizing pharmacists in California to prescribe certain medications since 2014. Medications with pharmacist-initiated prescribing, or furnishing, include naloxone, hormonal contraception, postexposure prophylaxis/preexposure prophylaxis, and nicotine replacement therapy. In light of the United States' opioid epidemic, naloxone, an opioid antagonist, this study considered furnishing rates in urban areas of California. Research from 2020 found 42.5% of pharmacies furnished naloxone. However, there has been limited study of furnishing outside of urban areas.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed pharmacist furnishing rates of naloxone in California's Central Valley and identified barriers and facilitators to implementation.

METHODS

From April to May 2022, the researchers first conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of community and mail-order pharmacies in California's largely rural Central Valley, then collected interview data from a subset of pharmacists in stores that indicated they furnished naloxone.

RESULTS

Forty-three percent of Central Valley pharmacies reported that they furnished naloxone. Interview respondents reported that barriers to furnishing included time restrictions, cost to patients, stigma, and language barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Furnishing rates in the Central Valley were slightly higher (43.4%) than those reported in previous research focusing on urban areas of California (42.5%). Identified barriers to furnishing were consistent with those identified in previous research. These findings suggest that further policy interventions may be needed to reduce out-of-pocket costs, establish stronger pharmacist-provider relationships, and provide education combatting stigma against opioid users to increase naloxone furnishing.

A qualitative examination of naloxone access in three states: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin

BACKGROUND

Prevention of opioid-involved overdose deaths remains a public health priority in the United States. While expanding access to naloxone is a national public health strategy, it is largely implemented at the state and local level, where significant variability in policies, resources, and norms exist. The aims of the current study were to examine the social context of naloxone access in three different states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Wisconsin) from the perspectives of key informants (first responders, harm reduction personnel, and pharmacists), who play some role in dispensing or administering naloxone within their communities.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with key informants who were in different local areas (urban, suburban, rural) across Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Interview guides explored the key informants' experiences with administering or dispensing naloxone, and their perspectives on opioid overdose prevention efforts in their areas. Data analysis was conducted using multistage inductive coding and comparative methods to identify dominant themes within the data.

RESULTS

Key informants in each of the three states noted progress toward expanding naloxone access, especially among people who use opioids, but also described inequities. The key role of harm reduction programs in distributing naloxone within their communities was also highlighted by participants, as well as barriers to increasing naloxone access through pharmacies. Although there was general consensus regarding the effectiveness of expanding naloxone access to prevent overdose deaths, the results indicate that communities are still grappling with stigma associated with drug use and a harm reduction approach.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that public health interventions that target naloxone distribution through harm reduction programs can enhance access within local communities. Strategies that address stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use drugs and harm reduction may also facilitate naloxone expansion efforts, overall, as well as policies that improve the affordability and awareness of naloxone through the pharmacy.

Stigma by Association: To what Extent is the Attitude Toward Naloxone Affected by the Stigma of Opioid Use Disorder?

The United States opioid epidemic is fueled by illicit opioid abuse and prescription opioid misuse and abuse. Consequently, cases of opioid use disorder (OUD, opioid addiction), opioid overdose, and related deaths have increased since the year 2000. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that rapidly reverses opioid intoxication to prevent death from overdose. It is one of the major risk mitigation strategies recommended in the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. However, despite the exponential increase in dispensing and distribution of naloxone, opioid overdose and related deaths have continued to increase; suggesting that the increased naloxone supply still lags the need. This discordance is attributed at least in part to the negative attitude toward naloxone, which is based on the belief that naloxone is only meant for "addicts" and "abusers" (OUD patients). This negative attitude or so-called naloxone stigma is therefore considered a major barrier for naloxone distribution and consequently, overdose-death prevention efforts. This article presents evidence that challenges common assertions about OUD stigma being the sole and direct driving force behind naloxone stigma, and the purported magnitude of the barrier that naloxone stigma constitutes for naloxone distribution programs among the stakeholders (patients, pharmacists, and prescribers). The case was then made to operationalize and quantify the construct among the stakeholders to determine the extent to which OUD stigma drives naloxone stigma, and the relative impact of naloxone stigma as a barrier for naloxone distribution efforts.

If we build it, will they come? Perspectives on pharmacy-based naloxone among family and friends of people who use opioids: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to the opioid antagonist naloxone to reduce overdose mortality is a public health priority in the United States. Naloxone standing orders (NSOs) have been established in many states to increase naloxone dispensing at pharmacies, but increased pharmacy access does not ensure optimal uptake among those likely to witness an overdose. In a prior statewide purchase trial, we documented high levels of naloxone access at Massachusetts pharmacies under a statewide NSO. In this study, we characterize barriers to pharmacy-based naloxone uptake among potential opioid overdose "bystanders" (friends or family of people who use opioids) that may be amenable to intervention.

METHODS

Eligible bystanders were Massachusetts residents ≥ 18 years of age, did not use illicit opioids in the past 30 days, and knew someone who currently uses illicit opioids. We used a sequential mixed methods approach, in which a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 22) were conducted April-July 2018, to inform the development of a subsequent quantitative survey (N = 260), conducted February-July 2020.

RESULTS

Most survey participants (77%) reported ever obtaining naloxone but few (21%) attempted to purchase it at a pharmacy. Qualitative participants revealed that barriers to utilizing the NSO included low perceived risk of overdose, which was rooted in misconceptions regarding the risks of prescription opioid misuse, denial about their loved one's drug use, and drug use stereotypes; inaccurate beliefs about the impact of naloxone on riskier opioid use; and concerns regarding anticipated stigma and confidentiality. Many participants had engaged in mutual support groups, which served as a source of free naloxone for half (50%) of those who had ever obtained naloxone.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high levels of pharmacy naloxone access in Massachusetts, few bystanders in our study had attempted to obtain naloxone under the NSO. Low perceived risk of overdose, misinformation, stigma, and confidentiality were important barriers to pharmacy naloxone uptake, all of which are amenable to intervention. Support groups provided a setting for addressing stigma and misinformation and provided a discreet and comfortable setting for naloxone access. Where these groups do not exist and for bystanders who do not participate in such groups, pharmacies are well-positioned to fill gaps in naloxone availability.

The cost and impact of distributing naloxone to people who are prescribed opioids to prevent opioid-related deaths: findings from a modelling study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although most opioid-related mortality in Australia involves prescription opioids, most research to understand the impact of naloxone supply on opioid-related mortality has focused upon people who inject heroin. We aimed to examine the cost and probable impact of up-scaling naloxone supply to people who are prescribed opioids.

DESIGN

Decision-tree model. Four scenarios were compared with a baseline scenario (the current status quo): naloxone scale-up between 2020 and 2030 to reach 30 or 90% coverage by 2030, among the subgroups of people prescribed either ≥ 50 or ≥ 100 mg of oral morphine equivalents (OME).

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

People who are prescribed opioids.

MEASUREMENTS

Possible deaths averted, costs (ambulance and naloxone distribution) and cost per life saved for different scenarios of naloxone scale-up.

FINDINGS

Maintaining the status quo, there would be an estimated 7478 [uncertainty interval (UI) = 6868-8275] prescription opioid overdose deaths between 2020 and 2030, resulting in Australian dollars (A$)51.9 million (49.4, 56.0) in ambulance costs. If naloxone were scaled-up to 90% of people prescribed > 50 mg OME, an estimated 657 (UI = 245, 1489) deaths could be averted between 2020 and 2030 (a 20% reduction in the final year of the model compared with the no naloxone scenario), with a cost of A$43 600 (20 800-110 500) per life saved. If naloxone were scaled-up to 30% of people prescribed > 50 mg OME an estimated 219 (82-496) deaths could be averted with the same cost per live saved. If naloxone were restricted to those prescribed > 100 mg OME, an estimated 130 (UI = 44-289) deaths would be averted if scaled-up to 30% or 390 (UI = 131-866) deaths averted if scaled-up to 90%, with the cost per life saved for both scenarios A$38 200 (UI = 12 400-97 400).

CONCLUSION

In Australia, scaling-up take-home naloxone by 2030 to reach 90% of people prescribed daily doses of ≥ 50 mg of oral morphine equivalents would be cost-effective and save more than 650 lives.

Pharmacists' experiences with a statewide naloxone standing order program in Massachusetts: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

In a prior statewide naloxone purchase trial conducted in Massachusetts, we documented a high rate of naloxone dispensing under the state's standing order program. The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that facilitate naloxone access under the Massachusetts naloxone standing order (NSO) program and identify any remaining barriers amenable to intervention.

DESIGN

Mixed methods design involving a pharmacist survey and 3 pharmacist focus groups.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups were conducted at 3 separate professional conferences for pharmacists (n = 27). The survey was conducted among Massachusetts pharmacists (n = 339) working at a stratified random sample chain and independent retail pharmacies across Massachusetts. All data were collected between September 2018 and November 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Facilitators and barriers to NSO implementation and naloxone dispensing and pharmacists' attitudes and beliefs regarding naloxone and opioid use.

RESULTS

Most pharmacists described NSO implementation as being straightforward, although differences were reported by pharmacy type in both the survey and focus groups. Facilitators included centralized implementation at chain pharmacies, access to Web-based resources, regularly stocking naloxone, and use of naloxone-specific intake forms. Barriers included patient confidentiality concerns and payment/cost issues. Only 31% of surveyed pharmacists reported always providing naloxone counseling; the most commonly cited barriers were perceived patient discomfort (21%) and time limitations (14%). Confidential space was also more of a concern for independent (vs. chain) pharmacists (18% vs. 6%, P = 0.008). A majority of pharmacists held supportive attitudes toward naloxone, although some reported having moral/ethical concerns about naloxone provision.

CONCLUSION

We documented several facilitators to NSO implementation and naloxone dispensing. Areas for improvement include addressing stigma and misconceptions around opioids and naloxone use. These remain important targets for improving pharmacy-based naloxone dispensing, although our overall positive results suggest Massachusetts' experience with NSO implementation can inform other states' efforts to expand pharmacy-based naloxone access.

The Impact of Stigma on People with Opioid Use Disorder, Opioid Treatment, and Policy

Illicit drug use disorders are the most stigmatised health conditions worldwide, and stigma acts as a meaningful barrier to treatment entry and treatment provision. In the context of dramatically rising opioid-related harms, it is critical that we understand the drivers of stigma and how it affects opioid use disorder treatment and policy. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss how opioid-related stigma impacts treatment provision and harm reduction, and provide potential strategies to reduce stigma at a social and structural level. We used the Framework for Integrating Normative Influences on Stigma (FINIS) to identify sources of opioid-related stigma at the macro (structural stigma), meso (public stigma) and micro (internalised stigma) levels. Reducing stigma requires strategies that target multiple levels, however addressing inequity in the laws, regulations, and rules that segregate people with opioid and other substance use disorders from mainstream society is essential.

Take-Home Naloxone and the Prevention of Deaths from Heroin Overdose: Pursuing Strong Science, Fuller Understanding, Greater Impact

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Realization of the life-saving potential of "take-home naloxone" has been a personal journey, but it has also been a collective journey. It has been a story of individual exploration and growth, and also a story of changes at a societal level. "Take-home naloxone" has matured since its first conceptualization a quarter of a century ago. It required recognition of the enormous burden of deaths from drug overdose (particularly heroin and other opioids), and also realization of critical clusterings (such as post-release from prison). It also required realization that, since many overdose deaths are witnessed, we can potentially prevent many deaths by mobilizing drug users themselves, their families, and the wider caring community to act as intervention workforce to give life-saving interim emergency care. Summary of Scope: This article explores 5 areas (many illustrations UK-based where the author works): firstly, the need for strong science; secondly, our improved understanding of opioid overdose and deaths; thirdly, the search for greater impact from our policies and interventions; fourthly, developing better forms of naloxone; and fifthly, examining the challenges still to be addressed.

KEY MESSAGES

"Take-home naloxone" is an exemplar of harm reduction with potential global impact - drug policy and practice for the public good. However, "having the potential" is not good enough - there needs to be actual implementation. This will be easier once the component parts of "take-home naloxone" are improved (better naloxone products, better training aids, revised legislation, and explicit funding support). Many improvements are already possible, but we hesitate about implementation. It is our responsibility to drive progress faster. With "take-home naloxone," we can be proud of what we have achieved, but we must also be humble about how much more we still need to do.

Does naloxone provision lead to increased substance use? A systematic review to assess if there is evidence of a 'moral hazard' associated with naloxone supply

BACKGROUND

Take home naloxone (THN) programs have been rapidly upscaled in response to increasing opioid-related mortality. One often cited concern is that naloxone provision could be associated with increased opioid use, due to the availability of naloxone to reverse opioid overdose. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether THN provision is associated with changes in substance use by participants enrolled in THN programs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess changes in heroin or other substance use by people who use opioids following THN provision.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 2578 participants were included. Of the seven studies, there were two quasi-experimental studies and five cohort studies. Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment, four studies were of moderate quality and three studies were of high quality. Of the five studies that reported on the primary outcome of heroin use, no study found evidence of increased heroin use across the study population. Five studies reported on other substance use (benzodiazepines, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamine, cannabis, prescription opioids), none of which found evidence of an increase in other substance use associated with THN provision. Four studies reported on changes in overdose frequency following THN provision: three studies reporting no change, and one study of people prescribed opioids finding a reduction in opioid-related emergency department attendances for participants who received naloxone.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that THN provision was associated with increased opioid use or overdose. Concerns that THN supply may lead to increased substance use were not supported by data from reviewed studies.

"I wanted to close the chapter completely … and I feel like that [carrying naloxone] would keep it open a little bit": Refusal to carry naloxone among newly-abstinent opioid users and 12-step identity

BACKGROUND

12-step programs aim to address drug-related harms, like opioid overdose, via abstinence. However, abstaining from opioids can diminish tolerance, which increases risk for overdose death upon resumption. A recent study found that desire to abstain from drugs inhibited willingness to participate in take-home naloxone programming, which was linked to perceptions of harm reduction strategies being tied to drug use. In the present study, we uncovered a similar phenomenon occurring among newly-abstinent participants who were refusing to carry naloxone.

METHODS

This study is an analysis of broader qualitative data collected throughout Southern California among persons who use opioids, including those recently abstinent. Preliminary analysis revealed that those newly abstinent refused to accept naloxone at the end of interviews, and so we began probing about this (N=44). We used thematic analysis and author positionality to explicate the emergent phenomenon and applied social identity theory to conceptualize findings.

RESULTS

Mechanisms underlying naloxone refusal included its tie to a drug-using identity that newly-abstinent participants were attempting to retire. Carrying naloxone was also viewed as pointless due to doubt of witnessing an overdose again. Furthermore, the thought of being equipped with naloxone was not believed to be congruent with an abstinent identity, e.g. "me carrying it [naloxone] is making me feel like I'm going to be hanging out with people that are doing it [using drugs]."

CONCLUSION

Recent detoxification heightens vulnerability to overdose, which other newly-abstinent peers might be positioned to respond to as bonds are formed through 12-step identity formation. However, naloxone is often refused by this group due to perceived 12-step identity clash. While some treatment spaces distribute naloxone, 12-step identity associated behavioral expectations appear to conflict with this strategy. Reframing these disconnects is essential for expanding the lifesaving naloxone community safety net.

Practical implications of naloxone knowledge among suburban people who use opioids

BACKGROUND

Naloxone distribution programs have been a cornerstone of the public health response to the overdose crisis in the USA. Yet people who use opioids (PWUO) continue to face a number of barriers accessing naloxone, including not knowing where it is available.

METHODS

We used data from 173 PWUO from Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which is located between Baltimore City and Washington, DC. We assessed the prevalence of recently (past 6 months) receiving naloxone and currently having naloxone, the type(s) of the naloxone kits received, and the perceived ease/difficultly of accessing naloxone. We also assessed participants knowledge of where naloxone was available in the community.

RESULTS

One third (35.7%) of participants had recently received naloxone. Most who had received naloxone received two doses (72.1%), nasal naloxone (86.9%), and education about naloxone use (72.1%). Most currently had naloxone in their possession (either on their person or at home; 78.7%). One third (34.4%) believed naloxone was difficult to obtain in their community. Only half (56.7%) knew of multiple locations where they could get naloxone. The health department was the most commonly identified naloxone source (58.0%). Identifying multiple sources of naloxone was associated with being more likely to perceive that naloxone is easy to access.

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that additional public health efforts are needed to make PWUO aware of the range of sources of naloxone in their communities in order to ensure easy and continued naloxone access to PWUO.

Australian Community Pharmacy Harm-Minimisation Services: Scope for Service Expansion to Improve Healthcare Access

Community pharmacies are well positioned to participate in harm-minimisation services to reduce harms caused by both licit and illicit substances. Considering developments in pharmacist practices and the introduction of new professional pharmacy services, we identified a need to explore the contemporary role of community pharmacy in harm minimisation. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to explore the opinions of stakeholders, pharmacy staff, and clients about the role of community pharmacy in harm minimisation, including provision of current services, experiences, and expectations. Participants (n = 28) included 5 stakeholders, 9 consumers, and 14 staff members from seven community pharmacies. Three over-arching themes were identified across the three participants groups: (i) scope and provision, (ii) complexity, and (iii) importance of person-centred advice and support in relation to community pharmacy harm minimisation services. Community pharmacies are valuable healthcare destinations for delivery of harm minimisation services, with scope for service expansion. Further education, support, and remuneration are needed, as well as linkage to other sector providers, in order to ensure that pharmacists and pharmacy staff are well equipped to provide a range of harm minimisation services.

Rethinking 'carriage' of take-home naloxone

Take-home naloxone (THN) provision to people who use drugs, their family/friends, and non-medical personnel is considered a public health strategy to improve community-based naloxone access and reduce the time to antidote treatment for opioid overdose in order to prevent fatal outcome. THN programs typically report up to three performance indicators: the volume of THN kits distributed, the rate of requests for re-supply of THN kits (e.g., following naloxone use for overdose reversal), and - increasingly - THN "carriage". In this Research Methods piece, we discuss the current shortcomings in the latter measurement of THN carriage from a mixed-methods perspective and describe possible implications for public health related research and improved data analyses. We present an argument for the need to improve research methods in the case of THN "carriage" and propose a multidimensional measurement structure that takes into account: 1) the location of the THN kit relative to its owner, 2) the owner's immediate access to the kit in an emergency, 3) the type of THN device, and 4) the purpose of THN ownership (i.e., for use in self or known/unknown other/s).