ArticleBMC public health2026
A mixed-methods evaluation of a statewide naloxone distribution project: considerations for future implementation of opioid overdose prevention initiatives.
Article in BMC public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite over a 25% national decline in opioid overdose deaths in 2024, overdose remains a leading cause of mortality in the U.S., with persistent regional disparities. Illinois, for example, reported nearly 4,000 overdose deaths in 2022. Evidence-based interventions—such as naloxone distribution—have been integral in reducing fatalities. While naloxone programs vary, research supports broader community access as an effective strategy. In 2021, Illinois launched the Access program, a statewide initiative providing free nasal naloxone through an online portal to community organizations, hospitals, and clinics. This study evaluates the implementation and impact of the statewide program to inform future overdose prevention efforts.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate implementation (qualitative) and outcomes (quantitative). Qualitative data included semi-structured interviews (n = 15) with state policymakers, implementation partners, and participating organizations. Quantitative data focused on naloxone orders and administrations from two program-level tracking systems. Data were analyzed separately and then compared to interpret findings among the researchers. The evaluation covers three years of data, from July 2021 to June 2024.
resultsQuantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between naloxone orders and administrations, suggesting that increased availability of naloxone in the community is associated with more overdose reversals. Demographic trends showed a rise in administrations on Black individuals and a decline among Hispanic populations. Naloxone use increasingly occurred in residential settings, with a decline in 911 calls and hospitalizations post-administration. Qualitative findings emphasized the importance of no-cost access and a simple ordering process, which allowed organizations to redirect resources to other critical programming needs.
conclusionsThe Access program successfully expanded naloxone availability across Illinois, particularly among underserved populations. Key facilitators included free ordering and streamlined ordering. However, disparities in naloxone administration responses and institutional participation highlight the need for continued efforts to reduce stigma and promote harm reduction education. Future efforts should focus on expanding uptake in low-barrier settings and conducting longitudinal evaluations to assess the sustained impact of naloxone distribution on overdose mortality.
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.