Impact of UNODC/WHO S-O-S (stop-overdose-safely) training on opioid overdose knowledge and attitudes among people at high or low risk of opioid overdose in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine.

introductionOpioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) is an evidence-based strategy to reduce opioid overdose deaths in line with guidance provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). However, OEND effectiveness has rarely been examined in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The WHO/UNODC Stop Overdose Safely (S-O-S) project involved training of > 14,000 potential opioid overdose witnesses in opioid overdose response (including the administration of naloxone) in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine. We examined the impact of training using the S-O-S training package, developed within the framework of the S-O-S project, on knowledge of and attitudes towards, opioid overdose as well as effective opioid overdose response amongst participants stratified by high and low personal risk of opioid overdose. DESIGN AND

methodsA sample of S-O-S project participants were recruited into a cohort study to evaluate the effects of training using the S-O-S training package. Of these participants, 1481 at high or low personal risk of opioid overdose completed pre- and post-S-O-S training questionnaires that incorporated sections of the Brief Opioid Overdose Knowledge (BOOK) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes Scale (OOAS) instruments. Outcomes examined included overall scale scores as well as scores on instrument sub-scales. Mean change scores, stratified by personal risk of opioid overdose, were calculated and compared using repeated measures t-tests. Variation in overall change scores according to select participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex) was also examined using multivariable linear regression.

resultsAfter training there were increases in overall BOOK and OOAS mean scores with a similar pattern evident in mean scores for all instrument subscales. Observed changes were larger for participants at low personal risk of opioid overdose (between 11% and 112%, depending on measure) compared to those who were at high personal risk of overdose (between 5% and 33% depending on measure), reflecting higher baseline scores for those at high personal risk of opioid overdose. We observed few variations in change scores across other participant characteristics. However, amongst those at high personal risk of opioid overdose, no personal experience of an overdose (β=-0.3; 95%CI=-0.5-0) and not currently being in drug treatment (β=-0.6; 95%CI=-0.4-0.8) was associated with a higher BOOK change score. Reporting not having witnessed an overdose previously was associated with higher BOOK change scores amongst those at low personal opioid overdose risk (β = 0.5; 95%CI = 0.2-0.8). Not currently being in drug treatment (β=-1.3; 95%CI=-0.1-2.4) was associated with a higher OOAS change score amongst those at high personal risk of opioid overdose. DISCUSSION: OEND training using the S-O-S training package resulted in substantial improvements in knowledge and attitudes related to opioid overdose and responses in the four countries, with improvements most notable amongst those at lower personal risk of opioid overdose. Widespread implementation of OEND using the S-O-S training package or similar could improve opioid overdose response in LMICs.