Patient perspectives on naloxone receipt in the emergency department: a qualitative exploration

Perceptions Towards Naloxone among Patients with Cancer Receiving Opioids

CONTEXT

Naloxone nasal spray is recommended for patients with risk factors for opioid overdose. However, cancer patients' perceptions and beliefs regarding naloxone prescriptions and their self-perceived risks for overdose are understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of cancer patients at risk for overdose who perceived naloxone as beneficial.

METHODS

Between July 2020 and April 2022, we surveyed 150 adult patients from the supportive care ambulatory clinic at a tertiary cancer center in the United States who received a co-prescription of naloxone nasal spray. We measured patients' knowledge of overdose risk-factors, attitudes, beliefs, and education received on naloxone. Risk-factors between beneficial vs. non-beneficial groups were analyzed. The survey was administered on paper or via a telephone interview.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients, 55% were male, 70% were white, and 81% had advanced cancer. The majority of patients believed naloxone was beneficial (100/150, 67%). When compared to the non-beneficial group, more patients from the beneficial group agreed that the concurrent use of alcohol (100% vs. 90%;p=0.004) or sedating drugs (96% vs.85%;p=0.04) with opioids could result in overdoses and felt safe having naloxone at home (95% vs. 60%;p<0.0001). More patients from the non-beneficial group associated naloxone prescription with being suspected of misusing opioids (12/50 vs. 8/100;p=0.01), and fewer had confidence in their caregivers' ability to administer naloxone (69% vs. 95%;p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Most patients understood the benefits of naloxone and felt safe having one at home. More research is needed to identify knowledge gaps and develop educational strategies for those who find it non-beneficial.

Layperson knowledge on naloxone and medications for opioid use disorder in an urban population: a cross sectional survey study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There has been little research in an urban population regarding knowledge of harm reduction measures and treatment options. The objective of our study was to evaluate knowledge and perceptions of harm reduction measures and types of treatment available for opioid use disorder among patients and family in an urban emergency department (ED) waiting room.

METHODS

We conducted a single center, cross-sectional survey study that occurred between September 2021 and August 2022. A convenience sample of patients and family members that were above 18 and English speaking were recruited by research assistants. Participants were assessed on knowledge and preferences around drug treatment options and harm reduction. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using the Freeman-Halton/Kruskall-Wallis/Mann-Whitney U tests. p-Values were reported at the 0.05 significance level.

RESULTS

We collected 200 responses. Of these, 104 people had a connection to someone with a substance use disorder (SUD) and 50 had an SUD. Of those who had a connection to someone with SUD, 63 had heard of naloxone (60.6%, CI: [50.5, 69.9]). Fewer than 60% of respondents in each group had heard of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) (p = 0.46) and fewer than 50% thought that among people who use drugs that they knew would be interested in receiving treatment (p = 0.10).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that among people who came to an urban emergency department, there was a lack of awareness of harm reduction and MOUD. Interventions should be put into place to educate on the importance of MOUD and harm reduction.

Feasibility of paying people who use drugs cash to distribute naloxone within their networks

INTRODUCTION

Immediate access to naloxone is needed to prevent fatal opioid-related overdoses in the presence of fentanyl analogs saturating the opioid supply. Peer models engage impacted populations who are not accessing naloxone through standard venues, yet compensating peers who utilize syringe service programs with cash stipends to distribute naloxone within networks of people who use drugs is not well described.

METHODS

As part of the HEALing Communities Study, syringe service program-based interventions were developed in Holyoke and Gloucester, MA, which paid people who use drugs ("peers") cash to distribute naloxone. Early program outcomes were evaluated for the time each program was funded within the HCS study period.

RESULTS

During 22 study-months of observation, peers in two communities distributed 1104 naloxone kits. The total cost of peer compensation for program delivery was $10,510. The rate of peer-distributed naloxone per 100 K population reached 109 kits/mo and 222 kits/mo in the two communities. Participating peers addressed gaps in harm reduction outreach and distributed naloxone and other harm reduction equipment to individuals who were not syringe service program participants, expanding organizational reach. Being compensated with unrestricted cash stipends supported dignity and acknowledged peers' work in overdose prevention.

CONCLUSION

The underutilization of compensated peer models is often attributed to funding and organizational barriers. These programs demonstrate that providing cash stipends to peers is feasible and expanded naloxone distribution at two existing syringe service programs. Providing cash stipends for peers who engage in secondary naloxone distribution offers promise in delivering naloxone to people not accessing syringe services.