Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32533570›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2021

Systematic review of the emerging literature on the effectiveness of naloxone access laws in the United States.

Rosanna Smart, Bryce Pardo, Corey S Davis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving Policy Evaluations Of The Opioid Crisis.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Price Sensitivity and Information Barriers to the Take-Up of Naloxone.American economic journal. Economic policy · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rosanna SmartRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1568-2097
Bryce PardoRAND Corporation, Arlington, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9690-7875
Corey S DavisNetwork for Public Health Law, Edina, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6278-5013

Funding

Optimal Methods for Estimating Policy Effect Heterogeneity in Opioid Policy ResearchP50DA046351 · NIDA · RAND CORPORATION · PI BRADLEY D STEIN · 2018 to 2026
$20.8M
Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD041022 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Martha Jane Bailey · 2016 to 2026
$6.9M
State Naloxone Policies: Exploring Effects of Implementation on EMS and Community Bystander UseR21DA045950 · NIDA · RAND CORPORATION · PI SMART, ROSANNA · 2018 to 2019
$474k
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041022NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA046351NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA045950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsNaloxone access laws (NALs) have been suggested to be an important strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. We describe the evolution of NALs across states and over time and review existing evidence of their overall association with naloxone distribution and opioid overdose as well as the potential effects of specific NAL components.

methodsDescriptive analysis of temporal variation in US regional adoption of NAL components, accompanied by a systematic search of 13 databases for studies (published between 2005 and 20 December 2019) assessing the effects of NALs on naloxone distribution or opioid-related health outcomes. Eleven studies, all published since 2018, met inclusion criteria. Study time-frames spanned 1999-2017. Opioid-related overdose mortality, emergency department episodes and naloxone distribution were correlated with the presence of a NAL and, where data were available, NAL components.

resultsExisting evidence suggests mixed, but generally beneficial, effects for NALs. Nearly all studies show that NALs, particularly those that permit naloxone distribution without patient-specific prescriptions, are associated with increased naloxone access [incidence rate ratios (IRR) range from 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-1.66 to 7.75, 95% CI = 1.22-49.35] and increased opioid-related emergency department visits (IRR range from 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.20 to 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.29). Most studies show NALs are associated with reduced overdose mortality, although findings vary depending on the specific NAL components and time-period analyzed (IRR range from 0.66, 95% CI = 0.42-0.90 to 1.27, 95% CI = 1.27-1.27). Few studies account for the variation in opioid environments (i.e. illicit versus prescription) or other policy dimensions that may be correlated with outcomes.

conclusionsThe existing literature on naloxone access laws in the United States supports beneficial effects for increased naloxone distribution, but provides inconclusive evidence for reduced fatal opioid overdose. Mixed findings may reflect variation in the laws' design and implementation, confounding effects of concurrent policy adoption, or differential effectiveness in light of changing opioid environments.

Indexed as

Drug and Narcotic ControlHarm ReductionHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsOpiate OverdoseUnited StatesNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsHarm reductionmortalitynaloxoneopioidsoverdosepharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32533570
PMCPMC8051142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.