ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2025
Perspectives of people who use drugs on implementing overdose response technologies in acute care settings: a qualitative study.
Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople who use drugs (PWUD) face many barriers in healthcare settings. Illicit substance use during hospital stays, including solitary use in bathrooms, is prevalent, leading to a higher risk of overdoses. In this study, we examine the views of PWUD on implementing novel strategies such as overdose response technologies (ORTs) into acute care and explore the perceived acceptability, impacts, and barriers of these interventions.
methodsWe used convenience sampling to recruit 10 participants from hospitals and addiction medicine clinics, and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interviews included an explanation of the five main types of ORTs relevant to acute care settings (hotlines, applications, overdose buttons, reverse motion detectors, and wearables), followed by questions where the participant had to critically evaluate whether each ORTs would be effective for each scenario. Open-ended coding and thematic analysis were used, and themes were derived from the data as it was reviewed.
resultsParticipants acknowledged the advantages and potential risks of integrating ORTs into acute care. It was recognized that ORTs could help improve the relationships between PWUD and healthcare providers, reduce mortality rates in hospital bathrooms, and provide peer support during hospital stays. PWUD highlighted privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and stated that ORTs can also negatively impact their relationships with healthcare providers due to stigma.
conclusionAlthough many participants felt that incorporating ORTs would be an advantage to their care within hospitals, our study also highlighted implementation barriers and broader policy changes that need to be addressed. Working towards addressing such barriers and changes can allow ORTs to be the next tool to help mitigate barriers faced by PWUD.
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.