Trial reportAddictive behaviors2026
Witnessed overdose history and response among overdose survivors who use non-prescribed opioids in an overdose prevention trial.
Trial report in Addictive behaviors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe REpeated-dose Behavioral intervention to reduce Opioid Overdose Trial (REBOOT) evaluated motivational interviewing for overdose prevention, focusing partly on witnessed overdose response. We assessed participants' witnessed overdose history and REBOOT's impact on overdose response among opioid overdose survivors using non-prescribed opioids in Boston and San Francisco.
methodsWe described participants' witnessed overdose and naloxone administration history over the four months preceding enrollment and the number and characteristics of witnessed overdoses reported during the study. We then used generalized estimating equations to test if the intervention affected if participants responded "me" to who, if anyone, responded to a witnessed overdose by assessing responsiveness, calling 911, performing rescue breathing, doing chest compressions, or administering naloxone during 16-month follow-up.
resultsOf 265 participants, most (83 %) witnessed at least one overdose in the four months preceding enrollment; 68 % of these participants had administered naloxone. In the 16-month post-enrollment follow-up, 250 (94 %) participants witnessed 597 overdoses. In 94 % of these, participants reported that somebody (themselves or others) responded. REBOOT had no significant impact on whether participants personally responded to overdoses: 67 % of control and 72 % of intervention participants personally responded pre-enrollment (p = 0.39), versus 63 % and 62 % post-enrollment (p = 0.97).
conclusionMost REBOOT participants witnessed a recent opioid overdose preceding enrollment. After enrollment, nearly all witnessed overdoses were responded to; the intervention had no effect on whether the participant personally responded. Given near-universal response, there was little room for improving overdose response. Future research should test similar interventions in communities with less prior overdose prevention exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.