Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38017424›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2023

Bystander preference for naloxone products: a field experiment.

Katherine R Marks, Douglas R Oyler, Justin C Strickland, Jody Jaggers, Monica F Roberts, Dustin K Miracle, Chase Barnes, Feitong Lei, Amanda Smith, Eric Mackin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Katherine R MarksDepartment of Behavioral Science, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. katie.marks@ky.gov.
Douglas R OylerDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Justin C StricklandDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jody JaggersKentucky Pharmacy Education and Research Foundation, Frankfort, KY, USA.
Monica F RobertsSubstance Use Priority Research Area, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Dustin K MiracleDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Chase BarnesKentucky Department for Public, Health Division of Public Health Protection & Safety, Frankfort, KY, USA.
Feitong LeiDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Amanda SmithDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Eric MackinDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Martika C MartinKentucky Pharmacy Education and Research Foundation, Frankfort, KY, USA.
Patricia R FreemanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.

Funding

SAMHSA HHS H79TI083283
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBystander administration of naloxone is a critical strategy to mitigate opioid overdose mortality. To ensure bystanders' willingness to carry and administer naloxone in response to a suspected overdose, it is critical to select products for community distribution with the highest likelihood of being utilized. This study examines bystanders' preference for and willingness to administer three naloxone products approved by the FDA for bystander use and identify product features driving preference.

methodsThe population was a convenience sample of individuals who attended the Kentucky State Fair, August 18-28, 2022, in Louisville, Kentucky. Participants (n = 503) watched a standardized overdose education and naloxone training video, rated their willingness to administer each of three products (i.e., higher-dose nasal spray, lower-dose nasal spray, intramuscular injection), selected a product to take home, and rated factors affecting choice.

resultsAfter training, 44.4% chose the higher-dose nasal spray, 30.1% chose the intramuscular injection, and 25.5% chose the lower-dose nasal spray. Factors most influencing choice on a 10-point Likert scale were ease of use (9 [7-10]), naloxone dose (8 [5-10]), and product familiarity (5 [5-9]).

conclusionsBystanders expressed high willingness to administer all studied formulations of naloxone products. Product choice preference varied as a function of product features. As the number and variety of available products continue to increase, continuous evaluation of formulation acceptability, in addition to including individuals with lived experience who are receiving and administering overdose reversal agents, is critical to support adoption and save lives.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseNaloxoneAdministration, IntranasalAnalgesics, OpioidHumansNarcotic AntagonistsNasal SpraysAnalgesics, OpioidNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsNasal SpraysBystander overdose responseNaloxone distributionOpioid reversal agentsOverdose education

Identifiers

PMID38017424
PMCPMC10685501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.