Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40251578›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2025

Naloxone dosing by non-medical first-responders at opioid overdoses: findings from a qualitative interview study.

Joanne Neale, James Cassidy, Sarah Cosgrove, Ben Carter, Teodora Dascal, Clare Mackie, Nicola Metrebian, John Strang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

8 authors.

Joanne NealeNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
James CassidyNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK. james.cassidy@kcl.ac.uk.
Sarah CosgroveNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Ben CarterBiostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, Memory Lane, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Teodora DascalNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Clare MackieNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Nicola MetrebianNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
John StrangNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Funding

Mundipharma Research Limited NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpioid-related deaths are increasing globally, and synthetic opioids intensify overdose risk. Naloxone can prevent fatalities, although too much can precipitate withdrawal and other negative reactions for the person overdosing. There is an increasing range of naloxone products, some providing very high doses, and this has generated different opinions on how much naloxone is necessary to save a life without causing harm. This paper explores how non-medical first-responders administer naloxone at opioid overdoses in the UK.

methodsQualitative telephone interviews were conducted (2021-2023) with people who used services (n = 21, of whom 20 used opioids) and staff working with people who used opioids (n = 7). Participants had all been supplied with naloxone (predominantly injectable Prenoxad) and routine naloxone training as part of a separate cohort study. All had witnessed an overdose in the previous six months. Interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded and analyzed via Iterative Categorization.

resultsOverdoses occurred within a framework of uncertainty. Participants were often unsure of the types and quantities of drugs consumed and did not always know if, or how much, naloxone had been administered. No deaths and few cases of withdrawal were reported, but other negative effects (including disorientation and anger) were common. On witnessing a potential overdose, participants made numerous decisions quickly. These included confirming the overdose and deciding whether naloxone was needed, who would administer it, when doses should be given, and when to stop dosing. These decisions were influenced by contextual factors, including the availability of a naloxone device, panic, prior knowledge of the person who overdosed, the helpfulness (or otherwise) of others present, and any training previously received.

conclusionsNaloxone dosing is complex and often reactive rather than purely scientific. Non-medical responders are competent at saving lives using naloxone, but do not always achieve resuscitation without negative effects. Findings highlight the value of offering optional advanced training and regular refresher training. This should focus on locally used naloxone products and dosing decision-making, plus experiential training that might enable people to anticipate how they would feel in a time-pressured overdose-related situation and so respond more calmly.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsOpiate OverdoseAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsDosingNaloxoneOpioidOverdoseQualitativeTraining

Identifiers

PMID40251578
PMCPMC12007269

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.