Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40452857›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025

Predictors of non-transport by emergency medical services after a nonfatal opioid overdose: a national analysis.

Jirka Taylor, Sachini Bandara, Cindy Parks Thomas, Brendan Saloner, Peter James Fredericks, Karen Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Jirka TaylorDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1523-5075
Sachini BandaraDepartment of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1797-8593
Cindy Parks ThomasHeller Graduate School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02453, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-1196
Brendan SalonerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9013-3023
Peter James FredericksDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2399-301X
Karen ShenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5931-9513

Funding

Research Support CoreP30DA035772 · NIDA · BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY · PI Maureen T Stewart · 2015 to 2026
$11.3M
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA035772
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Emergency medical services (EMS) response to nonfatal overdoses represents an opportunity to provide linkage to services. However, patients may decline follow-on transportation. This paper examined predictors associated with non-transport after nonfatal opioid overdoses. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of 2021-2022 data from the National EMS Information System. The outcome was a binary measure of declined transport. Predictors included age, gender, race/ethnicity, response time, EMS level of care, naloxone does, setting, urbanicity, region, time, and day. Results: We identified 710 263 nonfatal opioid overdose events, of which 12.4% ended in non-transport. Men were more likely to decline transport (average marginal effect [AME] 0.020 [95% CI, 0.019-0.022]), and Black patients were less likely to decline (AME -0.022 [95% CI, -0.024 to -0.021]). Compared with events involving an EMS-administered limited first dose (<2 mg), non-transports were more likely in events without naloxone administration (AME 0.075 [95% CI, 0.073-0.078]), with administration only by laypersons (AME 0.101 [95% CI, 0.096-0.107]), and when EMS administered higher first doses (2-4 mg AME 0.039 [95% CI, 0.037-0.041]; 4 mg+ AME 0.053 [95% CI, 0.049-0.056]). Conclusion: Efforts to improve post-overdose care should focus on groups who are more likely to decline transport and on appropriate naloxone dosing.

Indexed as

emergency responselinkage to carenonfatal overdoseopioid overdose

Identifiers

PMID40452857
PMCPMC12123062

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.