Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to understand college health administrator perceptions on adopting and implementing opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs among universities nationally.

backgroundThe United States opioid epidemic's reach is expanding. Rapidly scaling opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs is essential within a multipronged public health response. Universities offer infrastructure with potential to support routine, widespread OEND program implementation among adolescents and young adults nationally, a priority population who could disseminate to broader networks and geographic communities. This important setting is underutilized, and critical gaps remain in understanding university-based OEND program adoption/implementation.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews (n = 21) among a purposively selected national sample of college health administrators to understand their perceptions of barriers/facilitators of implementing OEND programs at their universities and among universities nationally. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and inductive-deductive thematic analysis.

resultsUnexpected student opioid overdoses and deaths catalyzed university administration to implement OEND programming. Absent the urgency induced by such events and in contrast to the incidental exposure they implicate, administrations perceived the prevalence of opioid misuse within their student population as too low to justify OEND program implementation. For some, this reluctance to proactively implement OEND programming was heightened by a desire to avoid political controversy, related to stigma surrounding harm reduction. Participants described the need for campus partners to collaboratively navigate university administrations' inaction/opposition, and ultimately, spearhead implementation, often with external collaborators. Key roles among campus and external collaborators were identified, including (a) allowing students to access existing OEND programming prior to obtaining administrative approval for university-based implementation; (b) compiling data and anecdotal evidence to understand the campus substance use environment and sharing that information with administration to establish program need; (c) overcoming stigma and legal complexity of harm reduction programming; (d) overcoming funding/resource constraints and building capacity to sustain OEND programming.

conclusionsOur findings underscore complexities of university-based OEND program implementation while providing actionable insights to support its national scale-up. Building on identified distinctions between universities in the process of implementing OEND programming and those without intention to implement, future research should identify OEND programming implementation phase among universities nationally, advance understanding of implementation determinants and strategies distinguishing each phase, and establish best practices for OEND program implementation.